IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL CLMA No. 7304 of 2002 (Review Petition) in Writ Petition No, 1603 of 2002 (S/B) Rais Ahmad and others ……..Petitioners Versus State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand) and others …….. Respondents. ……….. Petitioners’ counsel absent. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondents Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S.Rawat, J. Petitioners’ counsel absent. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for the respondents. 2. As there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners, we are left with no other option but to dismiss the review petition for want of prosecution. 3. CLMA No. 7304 of 2002, therefore, is dismissed for want of prosecution. (J.C.S.Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 11.06.2007 11.06.2007 A C.J.’s Court Writ Petition No. 1603(S/B) of 2002 Rais Ahmad and others ……….. Petitioner Versus State of Uttaranchal and others ……… Respondents. ------------- Hon. A.A. Desai, C.J. Hon. Irshad Hussain, J. Heard Mr. Tanveer Alam Khan, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel. The petitioners are holding the diploma in Moallium-E-Urdu. The advertisement was issued on 16.02.2002 for the B.T.C. teachers. The petitioners have not applied. Interviews were over on 03.07.2002. Thereafter, on 08.10.2002 the petitioners have applied for the post of teachers. The petitioners have sought a writ a mandamus directing the authorities to treat them equivalent to B.T.C. The claim of the petitioners badly suffers from laches and can not be entertained as that would cause serious prejudice to others. The petitioner is, therefore, dismissed. Dt. 13.11.2002 A