HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 121 of 2011 Bhagat Singh Rawat. ……..Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondent Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Uppadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondents. Dated: August 18, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) Delay Condonation Application no. 6262 of 2011 We are of the view that the reasons furnished for delay in preferring the appeal are not sufficient. We feel that the appellant has been misled in filing the appeal. In the original writ petition, it was contended that in 2008 an advertisement was published and the advertised posts have been filled up by people, who secured better marks than the petitioners. It was contended, in the writ petition, that a policy decision was taken that the candidates, who have been selected but could not be accommodated in the advertised posts, should be accommodated in other divisions. It was contended that in breach of the said policy decision, the respondents, in 2009, purported to put up an advertisement disclosing vacancies in the post in question. In the writ petition, challenge was thrown to the said advertisement of 2009 2 on the ground that the same is in violation of the policy that the said vacancies shall be supplied by the persons, selected pursuant to the advertisement of 2008. In the instant appeal, it is being contended that in 2008, two posts were advertised but one of them has been supplied and not the other one. The facts, constituting the said contention, were not pleaded in the body of the writ petition. The present appeal has been filed, inasmuch as, a Division Bench of this Court, at the instance of other writ petitioners, having noticed that the vacancies advertised in 2009 have not been supplied to the extent advertised, issued a direction to supply those vacancies. In the present appeal, the appellant is seeking to contend that let a direction be issued for supplying the advertised vacancy of 2008. We, therefore, feel that the appellant has been misguided and ill advised to file the present appeal. Taking the same into account, we condone the delay in preferring the appeal. Heard learned counsel for the parties and having regard the fact that there is no foundation of fact pleaded in the writ petition to the effect that the vacancies advertised in 2008, have not been supplied to the full extent, we dismiss the appeal. We have restrained ourselves from imposing exemplary cost in the matter. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 18.08.2011 NCM: