HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1120 of 2008 (S/S) Krishna Nand S/o Shri Bhavdev Paneru … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents AND Writ Petition No.88 of 2009 (S/S) Krishna Nand S/o Shri Bhavdev Paneru … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others … Respondents Dated:- 10th May, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Sri R. C. Arya, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, the learned Brief Holder for the State. An advertisement dated 30.10.2008 was issued inviting applications from seasonal workers for filling up the posts of Forest Guard. One of the essential conditions mentioned in the advertisement was that a seasonal workman should be working continuously since 09th April, 1996 onwards. The petitioner applied, but, was not allowed to appear in the written examination and, consequently he filed the Writ Petition No.1120 of 2008 (S/S) on 10.11.2008 praying that he should be allowed to appear in the written examination, which was going to be held on 16th November, 2008. An interim order dated 11.11.2008 was passed in the said petition directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the written examination for the post of Forest Guard, which was scheduled to be held on 16th November, 2008. It was further directed that the petitioner was being permitted to appear in the written examination at his own risk and subject to the decision of the writ petition. Based on the interim order, the petitioner appeared in the written examination and it is alleged that he got 62 marks out of 100 and was a successful candidate. The petitioner further alleged that persons, who had scored lower marks than that of the petitioner, were given appointment on the post of Forest Guard, but, the petitioner was not given any appointment and, 2 consequently, the writ petition No.88 of 2009 (S/S) has been filed praying that a writ of mandamus be issued to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by giving him appointment on the post of Forest Guard. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the counter affidavit, this court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Advertisement clearly indicated that persons, who were working as seasonal workers from 09th April, 1996 onwards, are eligible to apply for the post of Forest Guard. The petitioner has also filed the application in which he has indicated that he had worked as a seasonal worker from 2002 till 2007. Consequently, the petitioner did not fulfill the eligibility criteria, namely, that he was not working from 09th April, 1996 onwards and, consequently, he was not working continuously till the date of the advertisement. In view of the admitted position, the petitioner was ineligible to appear in the written examination for the post of Forest Guard. It is irrelevant whether the petitioner succeeded in the written examination. In view of the aforesaid, both the writ petitions fail and are dismissed summarily. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 10.05.2010 LSR