IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 235 of 2011 Lokesh Kumar ….…… Appellant. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………. Respondents Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State / respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Date of Judgment: 29.09.2011 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) In the year 1992, an advertisement was published for filling up the post of peon and the post of clerk. Response to the said advertisement resulted in selection of Sri Nishi Kumar for the post of peon and Sri Tilak Ram for the post of clerk. Selection committee then approached the District Basic Education Officer for grant of approval to the said selection. District Basic Education Officer refused to grant approval, on the ground that the recommendation of the selection committee, on being approved by the Committee of Management, should have been placed before the District Basic Education Officer by the Committee of Management. The said refusal on the part of the District Basic Education Officer resulted in filing of a writ petition before the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, which was subsequently transferred to this Court. 2. While the said writ petition was pending, Committee of Management advertised a post of peon and a post of clerk. Response to the said advertisement resulted in selection of the appellant as peon. The Committee of Management then recommended to the District Basic Education Officer for giving appointment to the appellant. District Basic Education Officer approved selection of the appellant for the said post of peon. Appellant was, accordingly, appointed by the Committee of Management. 3. Writ petition, filed by Sri Nishi Kumar and Sri Tilak Ram, was allowed, when a direction was given upon the district basic education 2 authorities to approve the appointment of Sri Nishi Kumar and Sri Tilak Ram. Aggrieved thereby, the Committee of Management filed a special appeal. Appellant, who was not a party to the writ petition, filed by Sri Nishi Kumar and Sri Tilak Ram, filed an impleadment application in the special appeal preferred against the order passed on the writ petition filed by Sri Nishi Kumar and Sri Tilak Ram. After hearing the parties to the special appeal, including the appellant, and after considering the entire matter, a Division Bench of this Court dismissed the special appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge. Appellant then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, which has since been dismissed. 4. In as much as there was one post of peon and one post of clerk, which could be supplied and in as much as Sri Nishi Kumar and Sri Tilak Ram, in terms of the said judgment of the Division Bench, were entitled to supply the said vacancies, the vacancy in the post of peon, advertised by the Committee of Management subsequently, and selection of the appellant in that post stood automatically cancelled by reason of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. Furthermore, before the appellant was appointed, in his appointment letter, it was clearly indicated that the said appointment is subject to the outcome of the lis filed by Sri Nishi Kumar and Sri Tilak Ram. 5. By a writ petition, appellant challenged termination of his appointment. That writ petition has been dismissed by the judgment and order under appeal. 6. In the facts and circumstances as above, we find no scope of interfering with the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 29.09.2011 29.09.2011 Amit