Order This appeal has been filed against, the judgment and order dated 14.7.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 222 of 2003, "by which the writ petition was allowed in favour of the respondent-teacher directing the appellant State to regularize the services of the petitioner-respondent against the existing vacancy of a sanctioned post of Science Teacher. 2. The appeal in the first place is time barred by 254 days for which the explanation, which has been offered is one of the usual and hackneyed, ones to the effect that the period of limitation expired since the file travelled from one department to the other before a decision could be taken to file an appeal against the impugned order. 3. The appeal, therefore,' is fit to be dismissed, even on the ground of limitation. In spite of this, we granted opportunity to the counsel representing the appellant-State to address us on the merit of the appeal in order to obviate miscarriage of justice on merit if there be any. 4. We have noticed from the impugned judgment and order that the petitioner-respondent herein had filed a writ petition for regularization of his services on the post of a Science Teacher from which he had been illegally removed by order of the Director, Secondary Education. The petitioner-respondent had also filed three writ petitions earlier and although time and again the appellant-State had been directed to consider his case for regularization on the vacant sanctioned post, yet the appellant-State had been repeatedly stating that he was not entitled for regularization as there was no vacant post. The learned Single Judge has noticed that in spite of an existing vacancy of a Science Teacher, the appellant-State through the Director, Secondary Education had been repeatedly passing adverse order against the petitioner and finally the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner-respondent was entitled to be regularized as there was a vacancy available for a sanctioned post and yet the appellant-State had not complied the order passed by the Court on the previous occasions, when the petitioner had earlier filed three writ petitions in which directions were issued. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that a 'vacant sanctioned post was existing. 5. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge was in error in holding that a 'vacant sanctioned post was existing. But the said aspect of the matter has been carefully looked into by the learned Single Judge, who had been pleased to hold that the previous Science Teacher had already been removed and hence the said post was lying vacant which was a sanctioned post yet the appellant had not cared to regularize the services of the petitioner-respondent. 6. In that view of the matter, if the learned Single Judge has directed to regularize the services of the petitioner-respondent, we fail to understand the reason for the appellant to feel aggrieved with the said order. Further what prompted the appellant-State to file an appeal after days of delay, in absence of any substance or merit, is difficult to understand. However; the appeal even on merit has no substance, apart from the fact that it is time barred by 254 days for which there is no satisfactory explanation. 7. The appeal, under the circumstance, is dismissed at the admission stage itself.