IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 40 of 2008 Roop Kishore Awasthi ………. Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others ………. Respondents Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mrs. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel for respondent no.4. Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. Learned Single Judge by adopting a very elaborate reasoning has disposed of the writ petition vide the impugned judgment dated 12.03.2008 by awarding Rs. 1 lakh as compensation the petitioner- appellant payable by the State of U.P., respondent no.4 herein, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment. The petitioner’s grievance was that he having been selected in the year 1990, he could not and did not join on the selected post because the appointment letter did not reach him as it was wrongly addressed to on Surya Kishore Awasthi. Learned Single Judge by referring to the chequered history of the case was of the view that since the appointment upon which the petitioner was selected was purely ad-hoc in nature and was to terminate on 14th May 1991, there was no question of issuing any mandamus upon the respondents directing them to appoint the petitioner-appellant. It is in this background that the compensation of Rs. 1 lakh has been awarded to the appellant on account of the fact that because the appointment letter not having been received by the petitioner-appellant due to the fault of respondents he indeed had suffered in not serving on the post for a few months. 2. We are afraid we cannot grant any further relief to the appellant- petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case. The appeal is dismissed. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 08.04.2008 08.04.2008 LSR