IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 105 of 2010 Mahitap Singh. .……… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. .………. Respondents. Ms. Sangeeta Miyan, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Considering the sufficiency of reasons for the delay in preferring the appeal, we allow the Application (CLMA No. 4963 of 2010) for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. 2. It appears that the order under appeal was passed at the stage when respondent No. 5 was not noticed. By the judgment and order under appeal, the writ petition has been dismissed only on the ground that the writ petition was filed in 2010 questioning the appointment of respondent No. 5 made by an order dated 31st July, 2006. It appears to be the contention of the appellant in the writ petition that in the selection, his merit was adjudged as better than respondent No. 5 and, accordingly, there was no just reason for appointing respondent No. 5 ignoring him. It also appears from the writ petition that an inquiry was directed on 14th September, 2009 in relation to the grievances of the appellant and it does not appear that the said inquiry has yet been concluded. We, therefore, are not ad idem with the learned Judge that the writ petition was belated or that the same could not be entertained at the stage the same was filed. 3. We, accordingly, set aside the order under appeal, remit back the matter. Let the matter proceed in accordance with law before the writ court after giving appropriate notice to respondent No. 5. 4. The appeal, accordingly, stands disposed of. Arpan (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 19.08.2010 19.08.2010