Girish Badoni vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others

Ravindra Maithani, J

Petitioner was appointed through outsource agency as Data Entry Operator in the establishment of the respondents on 01.10.2015. His term of the

contract was renewed from time to time and finally it expired on 31.03.2021. Petitioner seeks that the communication dated 31.03.2021 be quashed by

which, it has been directed that the Data Entry Operator in excess be not continued. There are other reliefs also which have been sought by the

petitioner.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in fact, on the subject recommendations were made by the respondent no.2, which has yet not

been decided by the State Government.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submit that petitioner may file a representation within a week from today making reference to the

recommendations, which has been made by the respondent no.2 and, thereafter, it is submitted that the directions may be issued to the respondents to

decide the representation that may be submitted by the petitioner within a stipulated time.

Learned State counsel gives a statement that any representation that may be submitted by the petitioner, will be decided by the respondents within a

period of one month thereafter.

The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned State counsel.

The writ petition is disposed of with the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation within a week from today with further directions to the

respondents that upon such a representation having been made, it shall be decided within a month thereafter.