IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1067 OF 2010 (S/S) Shiv Singh. ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……….Respondents. Present: Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the result of the selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.6.2010 published by respondent no. 2. Such matters have already been settled by a decision dated 11.3.2011 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 775 of 2010 (S/S) and other connected matters. Mr. B. D. Pande, counsel for the petitioners, however, states that although the matter is by and large stands covered by the above decision of the learned Single Judge, yet there is a distinction as far as present writ petition is concerned inasmuch as the learned Single Judge has directed that preference be given to Craftsman Training Instructor (from hereinafter referred to as CTI) Certificate holders and the petitioner however is not a CTI Certificate holder but he is an ex-army man and his qualification, which he claims to be equivalent to that of CTI Certificate and hence he claims equivalence as CTI certificate holders. 2 Be that as it may, it is purely in the domain of the State Government as well as the Director Training and Employment to grant such an equivalence. Therefore, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach such authorities to grant him equivalence as CTI Certificate holders. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the decision-dated 11.3.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 775 of 2010 (S/S). (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 28.4.2011 Rathour