IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 434 of 2011 Balveer Singh Rana ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Sri Neeraj Garg, Advocate present for the petitioner. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) On mention made by the counsel for the petitioner Sri Neeraj Garg, record of this case was called from the Registry. Heard Sri Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner was initially appointed on an application moved by the petitioner before the Chairman, Nagar Panchayat, Badkot, Uttarkashi wherein he prayed that he be appointed on a vacant post of Junior Engineer. He was subsequently appointed on contractual basis. There was no advertisement for the said post. Now, an advertisement dated 6.5.2011 has been issued by “Nagar Panchayat”, Badkot inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer on contractual basis in “Nagar Panchayat”, Badkot. It is this advertisement which has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that since the petitioner is already working as Junior Engineer on contract basis, other candidate cannot be appointed on the said post on contractual basis. This argument of the petitioner is wholly misconceived. Initial appointment of the petitioner was itself dehors the rules inasmuch as there was no vacancy advertised and there was no response called from the eligible candidates. The petitioner was appointed on his mere application. It is this appointment which has now to be made on contractual basis by inviting applications from all eligible candidates. There is no anomaly 2 in the same. However, the petitioner is also at liberty to respond to the said advertisement which shall also be considered by “Nagar Panchayat”, Badkot in accordance with law. The writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.5.2011 Avneet