IN TH E H IGH COURT OF UTTARAKH AND AT NAINITAL Sp ecial Ap p ea l No. 20 8 of 20 0 9 Vinod Kumar Singhal …Appellant Versus Vice Chancellor, Indian Institute of Roorkee and others …Respondents Sri Arvind Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Sri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Da ted : 13.11.20 0 9 H on ’ble Ta r u n Aga r wa la , ACJ . H on ’ble V.K. Bist, J . Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The Court finds that even though the petitioner had applied for the post of Office Superintendent but at the time when the interview was held, the petitioner retired on 30.01.2000. Consequently, even though he was eligible to apply for the said post pursuant to the advertisement but the petitioner could not be selected as in the meanwhile he got superannuated. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Since we find that the petitioner under no circumstances became competent to be appointed on that post, the appeal is devoid of merits and is dismissed summarily. (V.K. Bist, J .) (Ta r u n Aga r wa la , ACJ .) 13.11.20 0 9 VKG