IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 95 of 2011 Hemlata Naudiyal ….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents. Sri M.S. Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioner. Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard Sri M.S. Bisht, Advocate present for the petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand. This writ petition seems to be highly belated inasmuch the petitioner has challenged the selection and subsequent appointment made to the post of Junior Assistant in Minor Irrigation Department, Uttarakhand in the year 2006. The only reason assigned for filing the writ petition after the inordinate delay is given in paragraph nos. 27 and 28 of the writ petition. These paragraphs are reproduced as below :- “27. That the delay in filing the present writ petition for the relief claimed by the petitioner has occurred for the reason that after the appointment of Sri Sandip Rawat and Dulari Negi as Junior Assistant in the department petitioner was forced to seek information under Right to Information Act. The annexures to the present writ petition have been obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act. It was only after obtaining the information under Right to Information Act the petitioner came to know that she has been wrongly denied appointment and by giving undue benefit to the private respondents by the department. 28. That delay in filing the present petition has also occurred for the reason that when the petitioner’s name was shown at the top of the merit 2 list of Junior Assistant as the same was posted on the notice board of the department on 28.9.05 she was under the impression that she will get an appointment but appointment of private respondents as Junior Assistant forced petitioner to seek necessary information for filing the present petition. Therefore in the interest of justice the delay, if any in filing the present petition may kindly be condoned in the interest of justice and to safeguard the rights of the petitioner.” As the averments made in the paragraphs itself show that there is nothing to show as to when the information was sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Moreover, the Right to Information Act itself came in the year 2005, as such such information could have been sought earlier. There is no plausible reason for condoning the inordinate delay caused by the petitioner in filing the writ petition. Writ petition is therefore dismissed on the ground of latches. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 3.5.2011 Avneet