IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No.188 of 2011 Virendra Dutt Semwal S/o Sri Narayan Dutt Semwal, Village & Post Parkandi via Bhiri, District Rudraprayag. ………….. Appellant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 2. Director, School Education, Uttarakhand, Nanoorkhera, Dehradun. 3. Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri. .…...……. Respondents Present: Mr. Rahul Consul, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble V.K. Bist, Judge Date: 1st September, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C. J. (Oral) On 28th November, 2008, in exercise of right under Right to Information Act, 2005, a gentleman received certain informations. One of those was that appointments were given in 2002 to two of the candidates, who responded to an advertisement published on 18th October, 1997. It is the contention of the appellant that in 2011, he came to learn that he was one of the successful candidates, who responded to the said advertisement dated 18th October, 1997. 2. The appellant, in the circumstances, filed a writ petition in the year 2011 seeking an appointment pursuant to his success in the selection of the candidates, who responded to the advertisement dated 18th October, 1997. The writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay. 2 3. We are of the view that there is no scope of interference with the judgment and order under appeal. The appellant said to have responded to an advertisement published on 18th October, 1997. The last appointment pursuant to the said advertisement was made in 2002. In 2008, the said information was obtained by the gentleman concerned. Subsequent thereto, the said information percolated to the appellant. Appellant, then, is supposed to have made queries and came to learn in 2011 that he was also one of the successful candidates who responded to the said advertisement. The fact remains that discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can only be given to a litigant who is vigilant and not to a litigant who come to the Court without explaining the reason what prevented him from being vigilant. 4. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (V.K. Bist, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 01.09.2011 01.09.011 P. Singh