IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. LPA No. 49 of 2011. Decided on: 7.7.2011 State of Himachal Pradesh ....Petitioner. Versus Shakuntla Chauhan …Respondent The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) CMP (M) No. 274 of 2011 and LPA No. 49 of 2011 This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The State has sought to file an appeal against the order dated 7.1.1999 passed by the erstwhile H.P. State Administrate Tribunal in O.A. No. 73 of 1999. The Tribunal directed that the applicants should be permitted to appear in the written test alongwith the petitioners in CWP No. 2453 of 1995. The State has filed Review Petition before the Tribunal, stating that the written test has already been conducted on 27.12.1998 and hence, there was no question of any opportunity being given to the applicants to appear in the written test. That aspect of the matter was taken note of by the Tribunal while passing the order dated 2.6.1999 in the Review Petition No. 11 of 1999. That order reads as follows: “2.6.1999 Present Shri R. Bharti, Addl. Advocate General, for the petitioners. Notice be issued to the respondents with direction to file reply within six weeks. List thereafter. We have heard the learned Addl. Advocate General on interim direction. The learned Addl. Advocate General states that the interviews were held on December 27, 1998 before the date of order passed by this Tribunal, the order becomes infructuous. We observe that the directions were to give an opportunity to the applicants in OA No. 73/99 to appear in the written test/interview alongwith petitioners in writ petition No. 2453 of 1995 which were likely to be held in near future, as per the statement made by the learned Counsel for the applicants Shri K.D. Shreedhar. Since no interviews are likely to be held in future, no interim direction is required.” 2. It appears that the matter was transferred to this Court, since the Review Petition has not been finally disposed of. It appears that the order, as extracted above, has not been taken note of by the learned Single Judge and hence, the learned Single Judge passed the order in the Review Petition, stating that since the order dated 7th January, 1999 is a consent order, there is no merit in this petition and the same is closed. But the fact remains that in view of the order, as extracted above, nothing survived in the Review Petition. It is only to be closed in terms of the order, as extracted above. It is clarified that the order dated 7th January, 1999, passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 73 of 1999 stood clarified to the extent of the order dated 2.6.1999 passed by the Tribunal in the Review Petition, as extracted above. 3. With these observations, the application for condonation of delay is dismissed and the appeal is also dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. July 7, 2011 (Justice V.K. Sharma) (Lsp/hl) Judge.