2026:UHC:3753 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 3 6 8 / 2 0 2 2 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. C.S. Rawat, Advocate, i/ b Mr. Anil Anthwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, Advocate, for the respondent no. 1 to 3. (2) Petitioner was engaged as Teaching Personnel in Department of Mathematics of GB Pant University of Agriculture & Technology in the year 2011 and he served in that capacity till 2015 and thereafter his contract was not renewed. On 30.11.2021, an advertisement was issued by Dean, College of Basic Sciences & Humanities of the University inviting applications for appointment, on contract, as Teaching Personnel in Department of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science. Respondent no. 4 and 5 were appointed as Teaching Personnel (Statistics), pursuant to the said advertisement, for one semester only. In this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the note made by the selection committee in point no. 2(a) at serial no. 3 in the list of candidates but on wrong pretext mentioned the petitioner not found eligible and the reason of in eligibility has been mention (court case against university and false information claimed to university, so far relates to the petitioner. (Contained as Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition) (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash and set aside the appointment of respondent no. 4 and 5 made on the basis of marks allotted to them as per comparative statement. (Contained as Annexure 2026:UHC:3753 no. 1 to this writ petition) (iii) A writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents no. 1 & 3 to award the marks to the petitioner for interview as per his performance and thereafter issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner.” (3) Learned Counsel for the University submits that since respondent no. 4 and 5 were engaged, on contract, as Teaching Personnel during Academ ic Year 2021-22 and thereafter their contract was not renewed any further, therefore, writ petition has become infructuous. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was the highest scorer in the interview held for the selection in question, therefore he should have been appointed in place of respondent no. 4 and 5. (5) The aforesaid submission does not support the case of the petitioner at this belated stage, as the term of respondent no. 4 and 5 is over long back and even if petitioner was appointed on contract, his engagement would have expired long back. (6) Petitioner has moved amendment application (IA/ 9/ 2026) seeking to add two more reliefs in the writ petition, which are extracted below: “(iiia) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and regularization of the petitioner on the post of teaching personnel (Statics) in College of basic Science and Humanities of respondent University in respect whereof the process was started in the year 2016 treating him notionally in continuous service till his reengagement in the University against the vacant post available in the University. (iiib) a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the 2026:UHC:3753 respondents to consider the petitioner after rectify their willful mistake and accommodate the petitioner against the post of teaching personnel (Statics) lying vacant in the University.” (7) Learned Counsel for the University is right in submitting that claim made by the petitioner for regularisation is not maintainable, as he is out of employment since last more than ten years. Learned Counsel for the University further subm its that the complexion of the writ petition would be changed altogether, if the prayer for amendment is allowed. (8) This Court finds substance in the said submission. Since petitioner has questioned selection and appointment of respondent no. 4 and 5, therefore, the prayer for regularisation cannot be perm itted to be added by amendment in the writ petition. Amendment application is, accordingly, rejected. (9) Since the term of engagement of respondent no. 4 and 5 is over long back, therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending. The issues raised by petitioner thus have become of academic interest only. Writ petition is, accordingly, dism issed. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 5 .5 .2 0 2 6 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3 aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB58805 2DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.05.15 16:35:11 +05'30' 2026:UHC:3753