-,s ^•^t^V'. ..--• ftS5^^"'""" .*** ^1Iol<*TT'&l 5ft *refl<41C'ffS l9ni-a**t^, ^ft f^rc;TT7TqL7(^.3T.) ^WSLE W.P.No-:'"' ' / 2006 -A affcRrz' f^r^ ST^? 's^s, •?er. sft srsr fsrg ^r^'z' 3^ 2 5 cpsf •<;-I&I&|CT> ^S 3 q c) <ti sd cpi<yrci<y 5TT?TSTOTg7 rdcit^n 3TT3T U?T t-D*e G|*6°D TT^. col'SI 3TTcT TuTcTT cTFcTS' (?5.3T.).. .. AllRlcblcbclf "^WSt" y>T-nAic>lco STT3T5T STST ^d-i|<r<y ^TSTRTcT RTMTcyr ©.3T.STTST5T 'ST 3T33 CRC<^I"I Rt^ a-TETcT TTSTg? (i5.3T.) 2. cT5T afS^TrfS.TcFTfl' cireTerCTTg? d oi d-i dri 5TT7ra~aTg'7 fufcfl 3. ST3T 3T7S-TcR epfs&T ^TT EPTS&7 (S.3T.) (TS.-ST.) 3TCTI<C| |<^ |c»|uT vrSsi/'^s CTr^EBi^ afaafcT srsta^Er 226_^gt^lcT 3T3|S^ET 227 aTR?ft%r TI'f^E.TTBI XI-HC-78 3TI^T?iTi^IW tmsn^Tst»i —^^NK' < wq^n awi^i 3^ '^wici'ti, wSlv'ie, Kwvy. . .^f^.-.sai^.l^ 200 3ll^t lf«h('^•y*Vet) ?%iwflficr3n^T 4-7-2006: fdr ibe Shri S.U. Sharif, counsel Miss Dipati Pandey, Pan^l advance copy. Heard both the counsel. The main grievance raise^ that, in para-6.4 of the petition terms and condition of the services of the petitioner cannot notice and vide impugned ord^r petitioner have been terminated Learned counsel for the posting ofthe petitionerthere is r^ and to obtain diploma in Compuf^r not able to acquire the said therefore, fime be extended. Having heard iearned petition. As perthe appointment] ailowed 3 years time to obtain o|- and 2 years time to pass Hindi sen/ices were liable to be term) petitioner falled to acquire fhe sa| services can be terminated at tht one month notice. As far as contention of there is no training institute to a|; where the petitioner is workingl tiiiil<-i41-i iiKrtTft'te^ <Ri(tfi< • ^srf^rrsn^T the petitjoner. Lawyer for the State/respondents on (i by the petitioner in this writ petition is |it has been mentioned that as per the aijipointment tetter dated 24-5-2004 the terminated without giving one month's dated 26.6.2006 the sen/ices of the vj/ithout giving one month's notice. l^etitioner submitted that at the place of (o institute to tearn and pass Hindi typing application, as such the petitioner was q^ialification within the stipulated period, coLJnsel for the parties, 1 have perused the petter dated 24.5.2004 the petitioner was |ie year dipioma in computer applicafion jtyping test, faiiing which the petitioner's jnated. It is admitted position that the |d qualification, therafore, the petitioner's i^ end of 2 years' service without giving !e|arned counsel for the petitioner that as i|squire the said qualification in the area is concerned, it is for the concerned r XI-HC-78 3^ 'tlWM^, W^\WIQ, Rfdltiy *<i*ini st»*iicti W^ 200 3ll^<l <4atn (yil^siyT) an^TwR-ri'f) cIWSIT^TstiHlsh Barve STBiWBfera'n^r ~c^- authority to consider this point. If the claim made by the petitioner extend his period for acquiring th|e cannot interfere in this case andl period. in view ofthe above, the wr|t M.(W.)P. N0.2469/20)6 als^ Parties are entitled for certifie fhe concerned authority is satisfied that is genuine, then to decide whether to ^ said qualification or not. The Court direct the respondents to extend the petition is disposed of. stands disposed of. ^d copy of this order. *i'!il<-f41-f ><itif<T^Tsl<;l <Ri'ttfi< ^srf^iTsn^r Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge •^ ^