HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 280 of 2003 (S/B) Ramesh Chandra. ….Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. .…Respondents Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. K.P. Uppadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Dated: August 30, 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) The advertisement of 15th August, 2002 is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition, with a request to give the petitioner an appointment on the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil/Electric/Technical), or Engineer in pursuance with the selection process notified vide the said advertisement. On the principle that the petitioner, having had responded the said advertisement and having been declared unsuccessful, cannot be permitted to take a u-tern and challenge the same, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 2. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had applied for the post of Engineer (Civil) but in the said posts people, who had not applied for the said post, have been appointed and, accordingly, the petitioner should be appointed. The advertisement did not require the respondees to indicate which post they are seeking to be appointed. As would be evident from the advertisement, the post of Engineer (Civil) could be supplied by a diploma holder. Because the said posts were supplied by 2 better qualified people cannot be a ground for contending that the selection has not been done in accordance with law. When for a post, a better qualified person is available and the said person, in course of the selection, earns better merit then less qualified persons, the law requires appointment of the meritorious person having better qualification. It was contended that for the post of Engineer (Civil) the upper age limit was more than the other posts advertised. If a better qualified person, younger in age, is found more meritorious than people having lesser qualification and older in age, selection of the better and younger cannot be called in question. 3. We find no merit in the writ petition and, accordingly, dismiss the same. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 30.08.2010 NCM: