IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 205 of 2007 1. Rajendra Prasad Uniyal S/o Shri Chandramani Uniyal L.T.Grade Teacher in Science/Maths D. A. V. Inter College, Dehradun. 2. Lalit Mohan Saklani S/o Late Shri Chandramani Saklani L.T.Grade Teacher in Science/Maths D.A.V. Inter College, Dehradun. 3. Rajesh Kumar Singh S/o Shri M.D.Singh, L.T.Grade Teacher in Science/Maths D.A.V. Inter College, Dehradun. 4. Vijay Kumar Verma S/o Shri Shiv Kumar L.T.Grade Teacher in English D.A.V. Inter College, Dehradun. 5. Yogesh Kumar Srivastava S/O Shri Ved Prakash Srivastava L.T.Grade Teacher in Commerce D.A.V. Inter College, Dehradun. 6. Ajai Kumar Srivastava S/o Shri Ved Prakash Srivastava, L.T.Grade Teacher in Biology D.A.V. Inter College, Dehradun. 7. Shashi Kumar Tripathi S/o Late Shri Sewanandan. L.T.Grade Teacher in Sanskrit D.A.V. Inter College, Dehradun. 8. Dile Ram Ravi S/o Shri Thakara Singh, L.T.Grade Teacher in Maths D.A.V. Inter College, Dehradun ……. Appellants Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Education Secretary, Dehradun. 2. The District Inspector of Schools, Dehradun. 3. The Accounts Officer, Office of District Inspector of School, Dehradun. 4. The Board of Management, D.A.V. Inter College, Dehradun through its Manager ……… Respondents ………… Sri Mangal Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Sri Ashish Joshi, Brief Holder for respondents 1 to 3. 2 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Sri Mangal Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the appellants. Sri Ashish Joshi, Brief Holder for respondents 1 to 3. They are heard. 2. The appellants have filed this Special Appeal against the judgment dated 19.10.1995 passed by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 10370 of 1994. 3. The Registry has raised following objections in the matter: i. The Special Appeal is not maintainable in the High Court of Uttarakhand, as the impugned judgment was passed by a learned Single Judge of Allahabad High Court. ii. The Special Appeal is hopelessly barred by time by more than 12 years and no application for condonation of the delay has been filed along with the appeal. 4. The appellants, in view of the above-mentioned objections, appear to have filed CLMA No. 04 of 2008 for grant of permission to withdraw the Special Appeal. 5. By allowing CLMA No. 04 of 2008m the appellants are granted permission to withdraw the Special Appeal. 6. The Special Appeal, therefore, is dismissed as withdrawn. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 03.01.2008 03.01.2008 A