RUCHI CHHETRI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) By means of this writ petition, the main relief sought by the petitioner for issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the petitioner as continuing in service and confirm her with all consequential reliefs.

(3.) Learned Advocate General, appearing for the State- respondents, has raised an objection that it has been stated in paragraph no. 2 of the writ petition 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 and W.P.S.S. No. 301 of 2005, wherein almost similar reliefs were sought by the petitioner.