HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1733 of 2007 (S/S) Sant Ram S/o Sri Budh Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated:- 30th March, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri G. D. Joshi, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. An advertisement dated 10th August, 2006 was issued inviting applications for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in L.T. Grade in Government Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner applied, but, ultimately his name was not found in the select list. The petitioner made a representation and thereafter he came to know that he was not awarded any marks for post-graduate degree in M.A. (Hindi), which he had passed in the year 2002-2003. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed the present writ petition praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to award the marks to the petitioner, which is allotted to a post-graduation degree holder, and, thereafter necessary directions be issued to issue a modified select list. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under the relevant rules, a candidate is given 10 marks, if he possesses a post- graduate degree. The petitioner contended that since the petitioner was having a post graduate degree, necessary marks should have been given to the petitioner, which had not been done. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating therein that the respondents could not give any marks for the post graduate degree in as much as the petitioner has not filed the requisite marksheet of the post-graduation nor had filed the certificate, consequently, the marks for post-graduation degree was not awarded to the petitioner. The respondents have annexed the photocopy of the application form of the petitioner, which clearly indicates that the marksheet and certificate of post-graduation degree had not been attached with the application form. The petitioner in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit has stated that the necessary marksheets had been annexed with the application form. In my opinion, the averments made in paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit cannot be taken into consideration in as much as the petitioner has nowhere stated that the application form, which had been annexed by the respondents in their counter affidavit, was not that of the petitioner. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 30.03.2010 LSR