IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 202 of 2009 Naresh Kumar Sharma ….…… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………. Respondents Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents Date of Judgment: 01.03.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) Delay Condonation Application No. 9200 of 2009 Considering the sufficiency of the reasons for delay in preferring the appeal, we allow the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. Special Appeal No. 202 of 2009 Petitioner made a request for appointment on compassionate ground. The request was considered under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Such consideration resulted in appointment of petitioner as a junior clerk. Petitioner accepted the offer made to him for appointment as junior clerk. After having had accepted such offer, petitioner represented that since he has qualification to be appointed as a stenographer, he should have been appointed as a stenographer instead of junior clerk. This representation, having been rejected, petitioner filed a writ petition. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal. 2. It is the contention of petitioner that he has a certificate to suggest that he knows stenography. On the strength thereof, appellant is purporting to contend that since he fulfils the educational qualifications 2 prescribed for the post of stenographer, he should have been appointed as a stenographer, as is the mandate of the said Rules. 3. On the last occasion, when we heard this matter, we asked learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant to show us the prescribed qualification of stenographer. He wasted our time by looking at voluminous documents, but he could not point out the prescribed qualification. Even today, he has not been able to bring before us the prescribed qualification of stenographers. While making the representation, the petitioner did not try to ascertain what is the prescribed qualification of stenographers. He thought that since he has a certificate, he was entitled to be appointed as a stenographer. With the same thought process, he approached this Court. While filing the writ petition, the same thought process continued. Even at the time when the appeal was filed and the same came up for hearing, there was no change in the attitude. Petitioner, unnecessarily wasted the time of a Government Servant, who considered the said representation of the petitioner and at the same time, wasted the time of this Court at the time when writ petition was considered as well as now, when the appeal is being considered. For the reason that the petitioner/appellant has not been able to show and demonstrate that he had the qualification prescribed for the post of stenographer, we dismiss the appeal. We have restrained ourselves from imposing exemplary cost in the matter. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 01.03.2011 01.03.2011 Aswal