2025:UHC:5845-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/174/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. Mr. Sushil Vashishta, Standing Counsel for the State/appellants. 2. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the respondents. 3. There is a delay of 282 days in filing the present appeal. 4. For the reasons stated, delay is condoned. Delay Condonation Application CLMA No.3533 of 2018 stands allowed. 5. This intra-court appeal is filed by the State challenging the final order dated 15.05.2017 rendered by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.701 of 2015. Relevant paragraphs of impugned order is reproduced below:- “Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the present lis is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in WPSS No.602 of 2014 and analogous matter on 11.04.2017. Accordingly, the writ petition is also allowed in terms of the judgment cited hereinabove. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for selection grade, in view of the Government Order dated 22.02.2010, coupled with the fact that the similarly situate persons have been granted the same, in four districts within a period of ten weeks from today after counting the services of the petitioner which he has rendered w.e.f. 1999 to 2009.” 2025:UHC:5845-DB 6. Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the writ petitioners (respondents herein) points out that learned Single Judge had decided large number of petitions in terms of judgment dated 11.04.2017 rendered in WPSS No.602 of 2014. He submits that the writ petition filed by his client was also decided in terms of judgment rendered in WPSS No.602 of 2014. He submits that the intra-court appeal, challenging the judgment dated 11.04.2017 rendered in WPSS No.602 of 2014, was dismissed by Division Bench of this Court on 20.09.2018. He further submits that the State challenged the judgment dated 20.09.2018 rendered by Division Bench in SLP No.12720 of 2019, which too was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide judgment dated 09.05.2019. 7. Learned State Counsel do not dispute the said submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents and he concedes that the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge, impugned in this writ petition, has been affirmed in other identical cases, right upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 8. Since the controversy is covered by judgment dated 20.09.2018 rendered in SPA No.169 of 2018, this writ petition is also decided in terms of judgment rendered in said special appeal. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.07.2025 08.07.2025 Rajni RAJINI GUSAIN Digitally signed by RAJINI GUSAIN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db484 48ac3701a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17 d01342, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4 DF4FC80D4557562F95BEBA013F53061 6A158A0A878BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN Date: 2025.07.09 22:41:55 -07'00'