IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 448 of 2008 (S/S) Gulab Ram S/O Sri Dev Ram, R/O Village Shree Kot P.O. Dhauni Siling, District Champawat and another. …… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand through Secretary (Basic) Education Uttarakhand, Dehradun and three others …Respondents. Sri K.S.Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents. Date June 17, 2008. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Stay Application) Heard Sri K.S.Bora, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri K.P.Upadhyay, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents and perused the record. This writ petition has been filed for issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned advertisement/Notification No. Pra-Shi/03/Ek-1.[18]/2008-09 dated 4th June 2008 (Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition). By the impugned advertisement, only applications were invited for those vacancies, which were not filled up by the district level candidates. According to the petitioners, the Special B.T.C. course and consequent appointment as Primary School Teachers are being made within district cadre and the vacancies were being filled by the candidates within the district, but by the impugned Notification/Advertisement dated 4-6-2008, the respondent no. 3 has brought a variation in the appointment process and has treated it as State level selection. The petitioners have apprehension that the Scheduled Caste candidates of the district Champawat will be left 2 out as the vacancies are likely to be filled up from the candidates from other districts of the State. From a close perusal of the impugned advertisement, it is obvious that the Memorandum has been issued keeping in view the larger interest of the candidates who had applied against the advertisement made on 9-7-2006 for their home district vacancies, but who could not be selected on account of non-availability of vacancies in their home district and only the eligible candidates have been called for counseling. No prejudice is being caused to the rights of the petitioners because it is not the case of the petitioners that they had applied against the advertisement dated 9-7-2006 or that they were even eligible for selection to the Special B.T.C. course during the year 2006-07. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any perversity in the impugned advertisement. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed outright at the threshold. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. ( B.S.Verma, J. ) RCP 3 4