IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 997 of 2011 (S/S) Devendra Singh ………..Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Present: Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Anirudh Joshi, Advocate present for the petitioner. 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. Anirudh Joshi, Advocate for the petitioner as well as Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner in this case was a candidate for the post of police constable and he applied for the same. Subsequently, he was selected and sent for training. His services were terminated at the time when he was undergoing the training. The reason for terminating the services of the petitioner 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 petitioner applied for more than one centres. Therefore since it was in violation of advertisement condition and also that he had given a false declaration, his services were terminated by the 2 Senior Superintendent of Police, Dehradun vide order dated 21.5.2011 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition). It is this order which has been challenged by the petitioner. 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 petitioner would not be relevant for the present purposes. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sharad Sharma states that since after his selection the petitioner was undergoing training, he has already been inducted into the service. Therefore he 3 being the public servants has 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 petitioner 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.) 5.8.2011 Rathour