IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 338 of 2011 (S/B) O mvir Singh Kalkhanda ...…………. Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ...…………. Respondent Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C. J. Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (Oral) Petitioner after having had done Engineering, admittedly, did not work as a Lecturer. In order to qualify in terms of the conditions of the advertisement, petitioner was, therefore, required to establish that he was engaged as Senior Manager of a company or a department of the Government. He has produced a certificate suggesting that on 20th July, 2002, he joined L&T Case Equipment Private Limited, and at the time he left, his grade was M2. The certificate does not show since when petitioner was M2. That the gradation 2 M2 signifies Senior Management is also not decipherable from the certificate. The next certificate, relied by the petitioner, has been issued by Senior Joint Controller of Patents and Designs where it has been stated that since 18th September, 2003 until the date of the certificate i.e. 28th July, 2011, the petitioner is working as Examiner of Patents and Designs (Group “A” Gazetted). The certificate suggested that the nature of duty of the petitioner is Examination of Patent applications allotted to him to ascertain patent ability of the invention from techno legal angle, search etc. as defined in the Patent Act. The said certificate clearly suggests that the work entrusted to the petitioner does not involve any managerial duty. Though, the Commission has held out to the response of the petitioner that he was not working in a Government company, and accordingly, his experience in private company will not be taken into account, but having considered the certificates in question, upon which the petitioner sought to rely, we are unable to issue a mandamus as has been prayed for in the instant writ petition. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition. [ (U.C. Dhyani, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 21.11.2011 Negi