IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 129 of 2010 Surjeet Singh S/o Shri Babu Ram R/o Village Mahtuali, Tehsil Laksar, District Haridwar. ...…………. Appellant Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand Through its Secretary Education (Basic) Dehradun. 2. Director, Vidalayee Shiksha, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. District / Addl. District Education Officer (Basic) Haridwar, District Haridwar. ...…………. Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate, present for the appellant. Mr. M.C. Tiwari, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel, present for the respondents. Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble B. S. Verma, J. Hon. Prafulla C. Pant, J (Oral) Heard. 2) This is Delay Condonation Application No. 5551 of 2010 for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. The delay of 22 days in filing the appeal is sufficiently 2 explained in the affidavit filed by the appellant Surjeet Singh. Therefore, the delay condonation application is allowed. Delay is condoned. 3) Also, heard learned counsel for the parties on admission. 4) This appeal is directed against the order dated 14th of May 2010, passed by learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 91 of 2009 (S/S), whereby said writ petition has been dismissed. 5) Brief facts of the case are that appellant / writ petitioner sought a writ in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner to a suitable post in the Education department. The basis on which the appointment sought is the letter dated 7th January 2006, issued by Director of School Education, Uttarakhand, to the Regional Joint Directors of Education of the State, seeking information as to who have donated their land to the Education department, so that the appointments may be given to their dependents. Said letter is not a Government Order, nor the Director of School Education has a right to take a decision in this regard for giving appointment to the dependents of the persons who donated the land, bypassing the provisions of law relating to public appointment. The order dated 16th 3 March 2009 (copy Annexure C.A. 1 to the counter affidavit) shows that representation of the petitioner was rejected by the Director of School Education, Uttarakhand, on the ground that there is no Government Order in the matter, nor was there any condition mentioned in the gift deed by the father of the petitioner that the land is being donated on the condition that his son would be provided the job. 6) In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any error of law committed by learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition. 7) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily. (B.S. Verma, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. August 06, 2010. H. Negi