HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2025 (S/S) Suman ….......Petitioner Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Chandra Shekhar Dalakoti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 to 3. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- (i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner dated 16.06.2025 issued by the District Education Officer, Chamoli, contained in Annexure-1 to this petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring the impugned order of cancellation of appointment of the petitioner dated 11.06.2025, as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner w.e.f. from the date of cancellation of appointment to the petitioner. (iv) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (v) Award cost of petition to the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 3. At the very outset, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment dated 01.07.2025, passed by this Court in WPSS No.1092 of 2025, Jagdeesh Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. 4. Learned State Counsel admits this fact. 5. Since the matter is covered, instant petition is decided in terms of the judgment dated 01.07.2025, passed by this Court in WPSS No.1092 of 2025, Jagdeesh Lal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 16.06.2025 is set aside. 6. The respondents shall give a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner within a week. Within two weeks, thereafter, the petitioner shall submit his response to the Show Cause Notice raising all the defenses available to her and, thereafter, in the next two weeks, the matter may be decided. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondents may be directed to permit the petitioner to resume her duties because in the earlier petitions, similar orders were passed by this Court, but the respondent-authorities, despite the impugned orders on those orders having been set aside, 3 are not permitting the petitioners, in those cases, to resume their duties. 8. Since the impugned order, by which the appointment/candidature of the petitioner has been rejected, has already been set aside, its natural consequence is that the petitioner shall be permitted to resume her duties. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 02.07.2025 Ravi Bisht