UKHC010087702026 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2026 In Special Appeal No.191 of 2026 State of Uttarakhand and others …........Appellants Vs. Vinay Kumar and others …….....Respondents Present : Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Additional Advocate General with Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State/appellant. Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, Advocate for the NCTE. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Azmeen Wason and Mr. Kanti Ram, Advocates for the respondents. Mr. Nikhil Kushwaha, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Tapan Singh, Advocate for respondent nos.115 and 154. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani. J. Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Heard on Delay Condonation Application (IA) No.1 of 2026. 2. Having considered, the grounds of delay are good enough to condone the delay. Therefore, delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Delay condonation application is allowed. 4. Present appeal is preferred against the judgment dated 16.12.2025, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2292 of 2018, Vinay Kumar and other Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and connected matter, by the writ court. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2 6. By means of the impugned judgment, an ad interim mandamus has been issued to the appellants to consider the candidature of the respondents. In fact, when the matter was taken up for hearing in the special appeal on 02.06.2025, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that, in fact, the writ petition has already been finally heard and the order has been dictated quite in length a day before and the operative portion was to be dictated on that date. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up on 08.06.2026, again a statement was given by learned counsel for the parties that the writ petition is being finally heard and the operative portion was to be dictated on 12.06.2026. 7. Today, learned counsel for the parties submit that the status remains the same. The final operative portion has to be dictated in the writ petition. It has been suggested that since the writ petition is finally being decided, paras 17 and 18 of the impugned judgment may remain in abeyance till the writ petition is finally decided. Learned counsel for both the parties agreed to it. 8. Having taken note of the suggestion and its agreement by the parties, this Court is of the view that the special appeal may be decided accordingly. 9. The special appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 28.07.2026 Sanjay SANJAY KANOJIA Digitally signed by SANJAY KANOJIA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=e50e50b49596520698eff87e0a08bbd504686 df4d1afc60f54a287831dec46fe, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26EEB7122ED0DD23233A255DD8EC4 50A84B515A087CAEFD1B3179A7DEAE40699, cn=SANJAY KANOJIA Date: 2026.07.30 18:27:13 +05'30'