IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/S) NO. 567 of 2008 Mairaj Ali Mean ……Petitioner. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. ……Respondents. Present: Mr. V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. V.D. Bisen, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Assistant Teacher (Urdu) in a Primary School. The petitioner had obtained the requisite training known as “Urdu Moallim” in the year 1991. In the year 2004, the vacancies were advertised for the District Udham Singh Nagar. The petitioner applied but was not selected as he had by that time crossed the maximum age limit (being 35 years). The petitioner, however, claims benefit of a “Corrigendum” to the advertisement, which was published by the District Basic Education Officer on 19.8.2004, which is annexed as Annexure –4 to the writ petition (a legible copy of the same supplied in the Court today, which is made a part of Court record and marked as new Annexure-11). According to the corrigendum, the minimum age for appointment of an Assistant Teacher (Urdu) is 18 years and the maximum age is 35 years with further age relaxation till 40 years for reserved category candidates 2 such as OBC, ST/SC. The petitioner is admittedly not a reserved category candidate, therefore, the maximum age limit for the petitioner would be 35 years as on 4th September, 2004. However, the corrigendum further clarified that for such candidates, who have already obtained their requisite training (such as “Urdu Moallim” for the petitioner), but due to non-availability of posts during this period, they could not be appointed, in such cases their candidature will be considered, even if they have crossed the maximum age limit provided they have not reached the age of 50 years. It is this “corrigendum” on which reliance is being placed by the petitioner, and he contends that though he had crossed the age of 35 years but since on 4th September, 2004, he had not reached the age of 50 years, benefit was liable to be given to him as well. This claim of the petitioner is totally misconceived and based on a misreading of the Corrigendum inasmuch as though the petitioner had obtained the requisite training in the year 1991, he appeared in the written test of Assistant Teacher “Urdu” in the year 1995 for Nainital (at the relevant time in the year 1995, present district Udham Singh Nagar was a part of District Nainital). Therefore between the period when the petitioner had completed his training i.e. in the year 1991 and the year 2004 vacancies had earlier arisen in the year 1995 which were advertised in which the petitioner had appeared, though he was not selected. Therefore, the provision on which the petitioner is relying upon, which is contained in Corrigendum is not applicable in his case. It would have only been applicable in case between 1991 to 2004 no vacancy had come up in the district. In other words, between 1991 to 2004 for the first time the department was advertising the vacancy for Assistant Teacher “Urdu”, only then further benefit of 3 age relaxation could have been given to the petitioner. Such not being the case, reliance on the corrigendum and the provisions is wholly misconceived. The writ petition has therefore no merit and is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 12.5.2011 Rathour