COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) 362/2006 Mohd. Ilyas …….Petitioner Versus Director, Technical Education, Uttaranchal, Srinagar (Garhwal) & Others …….Respondents Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Gopal Narain, learned Brief Holder for the respondent no. 1. Sri H.M. Bhatia, Advocate holding brief of Sri Arvind Vashistha, learned Cousnel for the respondent no. 2 & 3. Sri Rajendra Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 4 & 5. 28th August, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned orders dated 6.4.2005 and 21.4.2005, contained in Annexure No. 7 and 8 to the writ petition respectively. Petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Workshop Instructor. 2. Relevant facts of the case are that respondent no. 3 i.e. Principal, Kanhaiya Lal Polytechnic, Roorkee issued an advertisement for filling up the various posts including the post of Workshop Instructor. Pursuant to the said advertisement, petitioner applied for the post of Workshop Instructor. Petitioner claims that candidates having lesser qualifications than that of petitioner were selected but petitioner was not given appointment on the post of Workshop Instructor. Petitioner claims that 2 Raman Pal and Akhilesh Saini i.e. respondent no. 4 & 5 respectively have lesser qualification than the petitioner who have been appointed on the post of Workshop Instructor by the impugned order dated 6.4.2005. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, the averments made in the writ petition have been refuted and it has been stated that the petitioner does not possess the essential qualification and required experience for the post of Workshop Instructor. On scrutiny, the experience certificate dated 15.4.2002 allegedly issued by Saraswati Dynamic Pvt. Ltd., Roorkee was found false. Saraswati Dynamic Pvt. Ltd. vide its letter dated 13.4.2006 (Annexure C.A.-1) denied the issuance of any experience certificate to the petitioner. 4. I have carefully perused the record. In view of the facts that have come on record, it can safely be inferred that that the candidature of petitioner was considered but he was not found suitable by the Selection Committee duly constituted for this purpose. Moreover, petitioner produced a false experience certificate and this fact stands proved in view of the letter dated 14.4.2006, which is annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit submitted by the respondent no. 3. 5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 28.8.2008 Prabodh 3