IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 134 of 2009 Vineet Kumar son of Sri Ajay Kumar, resident of College Campus, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar and six others. …… Appellants. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Education (Basic), Dehradun and sixteen others. …….Respondents. Sri A.V. Pundir, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned Brief Holder for the respondent nos. 1 to 4. Sri Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. Mohd. Safdar and Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 6 to 17. Dated:- 21.7.2009 Coram: Hon’ble Prafulla C.Pant, J. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. {Prafulla C. Pant, J. (Oral)} Heard on Delay Condonation Application No. 5944 of 2009 and perused the accompanied affidavit filed on behalf of the appellants. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. (Delay Condonation Application No. 5994 of 2009 stands disposed of.) Also, heard on the appeal. This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 1278 of 2008(S/S), which reads as under:- 2 “Mr. D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, learned counsel for State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Sudhir Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5. List on 08.06.2009. Till the next date of listing, no appointment in regard to the Special BTC Teachers will be made.” The above order, on the face of it, is totally non- speaking order. It does not even mention whether the parties were heard or not. Not only this the parties (who are the appellants before us) are directly affected by the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Their application for impleadment is pending before the learned Single Judge. In the above circumstances, we set aside the impugned order dated 20.5.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1278 of 2008 with the observation that the learned Single Judge shall pass fresh orders on the interim application after hearing the parties including the appellants, who have already moved their impleadment application in the writ petition. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. (Stay Application No. 5995 of 2009 stands disposed of.) (B.S.Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) 21.7.2009 RMY 3