IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 38 of 2010 Jitendra Chaudhary …Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. Manoj Tewari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Bhagwat Mehta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 1. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner pressed only one issue, namely, the eligibility of respondent nos. 3 and 4. Insofar as the issue of eligibility is concerned, we are of the view that the same is premature at the present juncture on account of the fact that respondent nos. 3 and 4 have not yet been appointed. Complaints on the issue canvassed at the hands of the petitioner have been received and are pending adjudication at the hands of the State Government. If and when respondent nos. 3 and 4 are appointed, a cause of action will accrue to the petitioner for the first time. In view of the above, we are satisfied that the claim raised by the petitioner is premature. In case, respondent nos. 3 and 4 are appointed, it will be open to the petitioner to file a fresh petition, if he is so advised, in accordance with law and thereupon to press the prayers made in the instant writ petition. Disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 18.3.2010 Avneet