IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WPSB No.246 of 2009 (S/B) Sunil Chandra Tripathi & others ………..Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents Mr. Manoj Tiwari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the respondent no.3. Mr. Kishore Kumar, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the respondent nos.4 to 22. Mrs. Beena Pandey, Advocate for the respondent no.23. Dated: 25th August, 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Having noticed that ad-hoc employees regularized subsequent to substantive appointment of the petitioners are being given the charge of the promotional posts, the petitioners approached the Tribunal principally challenging such action on the part of the State. It appears that though most of the private respondents were regularized subsequent to substantive appointment of the petitioners, by an order dated 10th April, 1995 they were treated to have been substantively appointed or regularized since 22nd March, 1984 and thereupon by an order dated 7th December, 1998 to have been appointed substantively 2 or regularized since 27th May, 1985. These two orders were not challenged before the Tribunal. In view of these two orders the petitioners having been appointed in 1986 and 1987, the private respondents could be treated to be senior to the petitioners. In the present writ petition, the petitioners contended, by placing reliance upon certain Rules, that these orders dated 10th April, 1995 and 7th December, 1998 could not alter the date of appointment after selection of the respondents and accordingly could not make them substantive appointees prior to their actual substantive appointment after selection. It appears to us that since these orders dated 10th April, 1995 and 7th December, 1998 were not the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal, in the present writ petition it would not be possible for this Court to enlarge the scope of the writ petition by permitting the petitioners to challenge the said orders. We accordingly, conclude the matter reserving the right of the petitioners to challenge the orders dated 10th April, 1995 and 7th December, 1998 in accordance with law before such authority as the petitioners may be advised. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 25.08.2010 25.08.2010 Arpan