HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 240 of 2009 Prakash Bhatt and another. ……..Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondent Mr. Manoj Tewari, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the review applicants. Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. K.P. Uppadhyay, Addl. C.S.C for the State. Dated: February 23, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) CLMA No. 5924/10 (Delay Condonation Application) CLMA No. 8435/10 (Delay Condonation Application) Learned counsel for the respondents does not oppose the applications for condonation of delay in preferring the Review Applications. We have considered the averments made in the applications for condonation of delay and being satisfied with the reasons, allow the applications. MCC No. 574/2010 (Review Application) MCC No. 853/2010 (Review Application) In 2004, an advertisement was published for the purpose of filling up the advertised posts. The appellants in Special Appeal No. 240/2009 also responded to the said advertisement. Their response was not processed further on the ground that they were ineligible. The advertised posts to which the appellants are interested, were filled up after completion of selection on 17th June, 2009. The appellants in Special Appeal no. 240/2009, in 2 their writ petition, contended that they are also eligible for the advertised posts and, accordingly, an interim order should be passed restraining filling up of the posts in question. Accepting such contention, an interim order was passed on 6th July, 2009 restraining the State Government from taking steps to fill up the said posts. Subsequent thereto, the said interim order was modified on 8th December, 2009 and thereby while the State Government was permitted to fill up the posts in question, such filling up was to remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition. Against the said order, Special Appeal No. 240/2009 was preferred. A Division Bench, while considering the said Special Appeal, felt that the appellants were entitled to be considered for selection and, accordingly, disposed of the appeal by a judgment and order dated 8th March, 2010 directing the State Government to consider the appellants in the process of selection for the posts in question. Despite filling up of the posts in question on 17th June, 2009, the State Government or the other respondents to the writ petition as well as to the appeal failed to bring to the notice of this Court that the advertisement stands satisfied in so far as Garhwal region is concerned, in which the appellants are interested, inasmuch as, selection has been completed and on the basis thereof, appointments have been given. In order to comply with the directions contained in the order under review dated 8th March, 2010, the State Government cancelled the appointments given on 17th June, 2009, although the order under review did not intend to cancel any such appointment. Further, as it 3 appears, without cancellation of the appointments given on 17th June, 2009, the Division Bench by its order dated 8th March, 2010 could not ask the State Government to consider the case of the appellants in the said Special Appeal, but at the same time, the Division Bench could not do so, inasmuch as, the appointees were not before it. We, accordingly, find that there is grave error apparent on the face of the order and, accordingly, recall the order under review. The review applicants are arrayed as respondents to the writ petition filed by the appellants. Inasmuch as the appeal was against modification of the interim order and, inasmuch as, we have noticed that before the interim order was passed, which was subsequently modified by the order under appeal, appointments were given, it would be futile to keep this appeal pending in this Court. On the other hand, we feel that the writ petition should be decided on its merit and, accordingly, after disposing of the appeal, we remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petition on its merit, as quickly as possible. We, however, restrain the State Government from giving any further appointment to anyone, until disposal of the writ petition. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 23.02.2011 Aswal: