IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 547 of 2011 (S/S) Yudhveer Singh & ors. ………..Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Present: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate present for the petitioners. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Bhuwan Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioners in this case were the candidates for the post of police constable and they applied for the same. Subsequently, they were selected and sent for training. Their services were terminated at the time when they were undergoing the training. The reason for terminating the services of the petitioners was that it was a specific condition in the advertisement that since the posts of constables are district cadre post and there were vacancies for each district, candidates should apply for only one district. Apart from this mandatory condition, there was another condition that the candidate has to give an undertaking that he has applied only for one centre and that he has not applied for any other centre. Admittedly, the petitioners applied for more than one centres. Therefore since it was in violation of advertisement condition and also that they had given a false declaration, their services were terminated by the 2 Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun vide order dated 30.4.2011 (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition). It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioners. This Court in a similar writ petition has already considered all the aspects and dismissed the writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 396 of 2011. The ground that principle of natural justice has been violated has also been considered in the said writ petition. Senior Advocate Mr. Sharad Sharma argues that in this case two new grounds are being urged. First that the condition of the advertisement that a candidate should apply for only one centre is not a condition in the Police Regulation or any other rules governing the service condition of the police constables in Uttarakhand. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this condition does not exist in Police Regulation it would have no relevance for the present purposes inasmuch as it matters little as to whether this condition was there or not even if such condition is imposed by way of advertisement. This condition is not unreasonable and secondly, what is more important and what has weighed in the mind of the Court while passing the earlier order in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 396 of 2011 rejecting the petition was that these petitioners have gained employment by giving false affidavits or declaration stating that they have not applied for more than one centres. In other words, they had gained entry in the Government service by making a false affidavit which cannot be permitted. Therefore, the first ground urged by the petitioners would not be relevant for the present purposes. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners Mr. Sharad Sharma states that since after their selection the petitioners were 3 undergoing training, they have already been inducted into the service. Therefore they being the public servants have a civil right under Article 311 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the public servants cannot be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without affording any opportunity of hearing. This aspect has already been dealt with in the earlier writ petition, already referred above, which has been dismissed. The petitioners cannot claim the right as given to public servant under Article 311 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition has therefore no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 10.6.2011 Avneet