IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 544 (SS) of 2011 Mukesh Chandra Arya …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others …Respondents Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate present for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder present for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. R.C. Tamta, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Anil Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioner was a Class-IV daily rated employee in the Forest Department. An advertisement was issued by the Forest Department for selection to the post of Beet Officer. These posts were to be filled up by “Seasonal Workers” as well as through direct recruitment candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste community. Consequently, the petitioner applied for the same in the category of Seasonal Worker. The petitioner successfully qualified physical as well as written examination but his candidature was rejected on the ground that he is not a “Seasonal Worker”. The case of the petitioner is that if the petitioner was not liable to be considered for the post of Beet Officer against the “Seasonal Worker” category he might have been considered for direct recruitment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that post of Beet Officer is also available, which were to be filled up by direct recruitment and the petitioner was liable to be considered for the said post, particularly in view of the fact that he fulfills all the criteria for that category, inasmuch as the petitioner was registered in the employment exchange of office at Nainital. 2 4. According to the respondents, the petitioner was not liable to be considered against the post, which was to be filled up by direct recruitment as the petitioner had applied from the category of “Seasonal Worker”. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste candidate, which is admitted by the respondents. 5. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected purely on technical ground. Though after including the name of the petitioner in the physical test as well as written examination, which the petitioner successfully passed. The respondents failed in their duty inasmuch as they have not examined the correct particulars of the petitioner before asking him to go through written examination and more particularly through the recruitment of the physical test where the petitioner had to complete a distance of 25 kilometers by running. 6. Be that as it may, no relief can be granted to the petitioner as is being claimed. The writ petition is, however, disposed of with the direction to the respondents to advertise the said post immediately within a period of eight weeks as admitted by them that such post is lying vacant. The petitioner would be at liberty to apply against the said post. 7. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of. 8. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) Dated: 04.11.2011 VKG