SHIV RAJ SINGH S/O RUDA SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Shiv Raj Singh S/O Ruda Singh
State of Uttarakhand and others
Click here to view full judgement.
Tarun Agarwala, J. -
(1.) HEARD Mr. Narain Dutt, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Mr. Anil Bisht, the learned brief holder for the respondent no. 1. On 20th June 2010, an advertisement was published by the Director, Employment & Training, Uttarakhand inviting applications for the post of Vocational Instructors in different trades in the Government Industrial Training Institute. Prior to this advertisement, an advertisement No. 1 of 2009 dated 20.02.2009 was also issued in which the petitioner had applied, but, for reasons best known to the respondents, the selection process pursuant to the advertisement of 2009 was cancelled. In the advertisement of 2010, it was mentioned that the age limit of the candidate would be 21 to 35 years as on 01.07.2010. It was also stipulated that the candidates, who had earlier applied in the previous advertisement and where the selection process had started but was cancelled subsequently, would be given an age relaxation of 6 years provided the evidence of applying pursuant to the previous advertisement was furnished by the candidate.
(2.) BASED on the advertisement of 2010, the petitioner applied and appeared in the written test and become successful. The respondents issued a letter dated 11.08.2011 informing the petitioner that he has been successful and had been appointed on the post of Welder and directed the petitioner to submit the necessary documents. By a letter dated 05.09.2011, the Joint Director informed the petitioner that he had not furnished the C.T.I. certificate and that he had become overage as his date of birth was 01st January, 1970. The Joint Director intimated the petitioner that if there is any mistake in the application, he may correct the mistake by submitting necessary proof within one month. According to the petitioner, he had submitted the requisite proof on 15.09.2011. Since his case was not considered, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to issue an appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Welder.
(3.) THE petitioner contends that he had applied in the year 2009 and, consequently, as per the terms for relaxing the age, the petitioner became eligible to apply in the advertisement of 2010.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.