2026:UHC:2755 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1048/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Imran Ali Khan, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Harsh Vardhan Dhanik, Advocate for the petitioner, through video conferencing. 2. Mr. Pradeep Hairiya, Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent nos. 1 & 4. 3. Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Advocate for respondent no. 2. 4. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, Advocate for respondent no. 3. 5. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- “1. Issue a writ in nature of Mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents to forthwith terminate/recall the deputation of Shri Prahlad Singh (respondent no. 5) from Uttarakhand Cooperative Dairy Federation Ltd. (respondent no. 3), as his continuation is illegal and beyond the sanctioned period. 2. Issue a writ in nature of Mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents to receive Shri Prahlad Singh from the present post immediately, being unauthorized and without valid approval. 3. Issue a writ of Mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents to initiate appropriate departmental/ disciplinary proceedings against Shri Prahlad Singh for wilful disobedience of Government Orders and unauthorized continuation. 4. Issue a writ of Mandamus, order or direction directing the respondents to ensure that appointments/deputations are made strictly in 2026:UHC:2755 accordance with law, rules, and approved resolutions. 6. It is contended that respondent no. 5 has been illegally brought on deputation in Uttarakhand Dairy Cooperative Federation and he is serving on deputation since last more than three years. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3, however, submits that petitioner do not have any locus in the matter to question the deputation of respondent no. 5. He points out that in the entire writ petition, petitioner has not disclosed, in what capacity, he has filed this writ petition. 8. Law is well settled that in service matters, there cannot be any Public Interest Litigation and one must have locus standi to question any order passed in respect of some other employee. 9. Since petitioner is not affected in any manner by deputation of respondent no. 5, therefore, this Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that writ petition is without any cause of action. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 17.04.2026 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a131 bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D6 53D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.04.17 17:43:23 +05'30'