SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 63D WPMS No.1266 of 2023 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Rajendra Pant, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 4. The petitioners claim that their father Late Sri Jai Dutt Brijwasi was serving in the Railway Department on Class IVth post and during his active service period, he died on 27.02.1977, leaving behind the petitioners as his sons as also three more sons, namely, Chandra Shekar, Chunamai and respondent no.5 Pitamber Dutt. Two brothers of the petitioners were on Government service at the time when Late Sri Jai Dutt Brijwasi died. When the petitioners requested the respondnet no.3, the District Magistrate, Nainital for the compassionate appointment, it was told to them that if any of the family member is on Government job, compassionate appointment may not be given. But subsequently, according to the petitioners, they came to know that the respondent no.5 procured the Government job on compassionate grounds without any no objection by the petitioners and such appointment was taken in the year 1989. Although, it is the case of the petitioners that the respondent no.5 had claimed that he got appointment by virtue of open competitive examination. By means of instant petition, the petitioners seek inquiry into the illegal appointment of the respondent no.5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that all the record pertaining to the respondent no.5 has been destroyed as reported by the Revenue Department to the petitioners. The respondent no.5 had conducted fraud in procuring appointment on compassionate grounds after the death of the father of the petitioners. Therefore, an inquiry is necessary in the matter. The father of the petitioners had died in the year 1977. The respondent no.5, the brother of the petitioners was appointed according to the petitioners themselves in the year 1989. Now after so much lapse of time, this Court does not see any reason to conduct any inquiry. The petition on this ground alone, is not entertainable, it deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. The petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 30.04.2025 Jitendra