IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1813 OF 2005 (SS) Rohit Miyan ……….Petitioner. Versus Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna and others. ……Respondents. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand. 11th November, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. List revised. Case called out twice. None appears for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for State of Uttarakhand is present. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer: “1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 to grant appointment to the petitioner on Class III post for which he possess the requisite qualification. 2. Issue a writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in view of the circumstances of the case. 3. To award the cost of the present writ petition in favour of the petitioner.” The facts of the case are that the petitioner is seeking an appointment on a Class III post in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna University on the basis that the land of the petitioner was acquired by the University and there is a Govt. Order dated 25.5.1999, in which the State has given instructions to the concerned University that those families, whose lands have been acquired, one person of those families shall be given appointment on Class III post. The University on the other hand has filed a counter affidavit stating that the petitioner cannot be given the benefit of this G.O. inasmuch as the land of the petitioner was not acquired but was purchased by the University by private negotiations and therefore the petitioner cannot be considered in the category of a “displaced person”. The petitioner has not stated as to when the land was acquired under the Land Acquisiion Act. No such notification has been annexed or even referred to. Since the land of the petitioner was not acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, the benefit of Govt. Order dated 25.5.1999 cannot be given to the petitioner. The writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 11.11.2009 Rathour