RUCHI CHHETRI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner files supplementary affidavit. The same is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs:- Issue of a writ of mandamus directing respondents to treat the petitioner as continuing in service and confirm her with all consequential reliefs.

(2.) Issue a writ of prohibition prohibiting the respondents from hindering the petitioner in any manner whatsoever in her service.

(3.) Issue a writ of certiorari and/or any other writs according as it may please your lordships in favour of the petitioner. On 11-8-2010, the instant writ petition was listed before this Court for admission. When the matter was taken up by the Court for admission, the learned Advocate General Mr. S.N.Babulkar, appearing on behalf of the State raised an objection to the averments made by the petitioner in the memo of petition that it has been stated in paragraph no. 2 thereof that no other or similar petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondents claiming the same relief in this or in any other Court, but in fact two writ petitions were filed by the petitioner earlier before this Court, namely W.P.S.S. No. 439 of 2004, Smt. Ruchi Chetri Vs. Director, Sanskriti Directorate, Uttaranchal and another, which subsequently gave rise to filing of Defective Special Appeal No. 35 of 2004 by the petitioner and W.P.S.S. No. 301 of 2005, wherein almost similar reliefs were sought by the petitioner. The records of the aforesaid writ petitions and the special appeal were summoned by the Court for perusal. For a ready reference the reliefs sought by the petitioner in the earlier writ petitions are being reproduced below.