IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 76 of 2011 State of Uttarakhand & others. .……… Appellants Versus Mukesh Kumar. .………. Respondent. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State / appellants. Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for the respondent. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) Delay Condonation Application No. 2969 of 2011: Objection filed in Court on behalf of the respondent to the delay condonation application is kept with the record. We have considered the averments made in the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal as also in the objection. There has been 272 days’ delay in preferring the appeal. The reasons furnished are that the papers moved from one department to the other and that there was some mistake in mentioning the number of the writ petition in the permission accorded to prefer appeal and subsequent correction thereof. The grounds, thus furnished, do not inspire confidence that there had been sufficient or any reasonable cause for delay. However, taking into account that a substantial question of law has been raised in the appeal, we reluctantly allow the application for condonation of delay. Special Appeal No. 76 of 2011: Admit. 2. By consent of the parties, we have taken up the appeal for final hearing. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. On 9th July, 2006, an advertisement was issued, whereby it was indicated that 2 the responders thereto, on being selected, would be imparted Special B.T.C. Training during the year 2006-2007. Although the advertisement did not indicate, but the fact remains that candidates, successfully completing Special B.T.C. Training, are normally engaged as Assistant Teachers in schools situated in the districts mentioned in the advertisement. Respondent responded to the said advertisement and was selected. After his selection, he was asked to file an affidavit. In the affidavit, he indicated that he has already obtained Special B.T.C. Training from some other district. Respondent was, thereupon, informed that since he did not furnish “No Objection” from the authority, who granted such Special B.T.C. Training, while responding to the said advertisement, his selection for Special B.T.C. Training, pursuant to the said advertisement, is cancelled. On the ground that, before cancellation, respondent was not noticed, he approached this court by filing the writ petition. 4. When the writ petition was considered, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the advertisement, which was responded by the respondent, did not indicate that a person, who has already obtained Special B.T.C. Training, will not be entitled to obtain a fresh Training and that the advertisement also did not indicate that the responder is required to obtain a No Objection, in the event, he has already undergone the Training. The learned Single Judge, in such premise, allowed the writ petition and quashed the decision of de-selecting the respondent for the subject Training. 5. As it appears to us, respondent responded to a similar advertisement, as that of the advertisement referred to above, for obtaining Special B.T.C. Training. On completion of Special B.T.C. Training, pursuant to the said advertisement, respondent would have had been appointed in a school situated in the district Pauri Garhwal. Subsequently, it transpired to the respondent that steps are being taken to impart Special B.T.C. Training to people, who, on successful completion of Training, would be appointed in the district of Haridwar. Respondent, 3 after having had completed his Special B.T.C. Training, which entailed an appointment to the respondent in the district of Pauri Garhwal, felt that, if he applies to the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006 and is selected for obtaining Special B.T.C. Training, he would be appointed in a school situated in the district of Haridwar and, accordingly, responded to the said advertisement dated 9th July, 2006. 6. It is true that the advertisement dated 9th July, 2006 did not impose a bar on a person, who has already obtained Special B.T.C. Training, to respond to the said advertisement. It is also true that the advertisement did not indicate that a person, who has already obtained Special B.T.C. Training, would, while responding to the said advertisement, be required to furnish a No Objection Certificate. But, we think that those were not at all necessary to be advertised. The State would not spend twice over to train a man in a particular field. If a person has already been trained in a particular field, question of the State, once again giving him training in that field, does not arise. Therefore, it must be deemed that a person, who has already obtained the subject training, was barred from responding to the said advertisement. 7. Similarly, there was no requirement to mention about No Objection in the advertisement. As aforesaid, respondent was specifically trained for being appointed as a Teacher in a school situated in the district of Pauri Garhwal. Completion of Training entailed an appointment of the respondent in one of such schools. If, despite having had obtained such Training, respondent does not work as a Teacher of a school situated in the district of Pauri Garhwal, people and the students of Pauri Garhwal would suffer. The number of seats in Special B.T.C. Training are such, having regard to the basic object of such Training, so as to ensure that the people, completing such Training, are appointed. Therefore, in the event, on the basis of a No Objection, respondent is permitted to undertake Special B.T.C. Training once again, only for the purpose of being appointed in a school situated in the district of Haridwar, that would tantamount to furthering private interest of the respondent at the cost of 4 public interest of the people of the State. In the circumstances, there could be no such No Objection, nor, on the basis of any No Objection, anyone, who has already been specially trained for a particular purpose, could be imparted similar training only for the purpose of enabling him to obtain an appointment at a different place. 8. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under Appeal and, at the same time, dismiss the writ petition. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 13.05.2011 13.05.2011 G