IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 550 OF 2011 (S/S) Pooran Ram …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……...Respondents. Present: Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. S.S. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil K. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner wants to be an Instructor in Industrial Training Institute run by the Government at Bageshwar. The case of the petitioner is that like the petitioner there are other Instructors working in this Institute on daily wages. Since the petitioner was not being considered, the petitioner earlier filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 1858 of 2005 (S/S), which was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 27.2.2006 by permitting the petitioner to move a representation before the concerned Authorities. It was directed that if such a representation is moved, the same shall be disposed of by the concerned Authorities in accordance with law. Subsequently, the petitioner moved a representation before the Director, Training and Employment, Uttarakhand, Haldwani, which was disposed of on 19.7.2006 stating that the selection process to the post of Instructor is on and if the petitioner qualifies in the same, he will be appointed. It is 2 this order which the petitioner has challenged after almost five years. Learned Standing Counsel has raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition at this belated stage and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed on the ground of laches. It is true that the writ petition is highly belated and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Even otherwise the petitioner has no case on merits. Moreover, the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner has been disposed of and consequent to the orders in the writ petition, the representation of the petitioner already stands decided by reasoned orders stating that the representation of the petitioner cannot be considered as a regular process of selection is on. Apart from the fact that the writ petition is highly belated, on examination it is found that there is nothing to be said on the merits of the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.06.2011 Rathour