IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1493 (S/S) of 2007 1. Jawahar Lal S/o Balveer Singh R/o 275, New Adarsh Nagar Roorkee, District Haridwar. 2. Smt. Ruby Saini W/o Dr. Ashok Pundir R/o 600 Sainik Colony, Roorkee District Haridwar. …………..Petitioners Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through its Secretary Education, Civil Secretariat Dehradun. 2. Director School Education Mayur Vihar, Dehradun. 3. Additional Director, S.C.E.R.T. Uttarakhand, Narendra Nagar Tehri Garhwal. 4. Principal, District Education &Training Institute, Roorkee District Haridwar. ………….Respondents Shri Ajay Veer Pundir, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri N.P.Sah, learned standing counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla c. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing the format of affidavit, which is required to be signed by the selected candidates before undergoing the special B.T.C. course. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the conditions mentioned in the format of affidavit cannot be forced to be accepted by the petitioners, as the same are discriminatory and against them. The conditions mentioned in the format of affidavit are being reproduced below:- “eSa 'kiFk iwoZd ;g Hkh c;ku djrk gwW@djrh gWw fd& 1- ;fn esjk LFkkbZ fuokl izek.k i= gfj}kj tuin ds vfrfjDr fdlh vU; tuin vFkok tuinksa ls fuxZr gqvk ik;k tk; rks fu;ekuqlkj esjk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k tk;A 2- ;fn esjk tkfr izek.k i= vlR;@Hkzked@lafnX/k ik;k tkrk gS rks fu;ekuqlkj esjk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k tk;A 3- orZeku esa ekuuh; mPpU;k;ky; uSuhrky ds fu.kZ; fnukad 09-07-2007 ds vk/kkj ij ;fn esjh ch0,M0 izf”k{k.k mikf/k fdlh Hkh fo”ofo|ky; ls i=kpkj ek/;e ls mRrh.kZ fd, tkus ds lEcU/k esa Li"V izek.k feyrs gS] rks esjk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k tk;A 4- ;fn esjh ch0,M0 izf”k{k.k mikf/k ds lEcU/k esa] lEcfU/kr fo”ofo|ky; }kjk lR;kiu ds mijkUr dksbZ Hkh rF; vlR;] vlaxr] lafnX/k ;k Hkzkfed ik;k tkrk gSA rks esjk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k tk;sA 5- foxr o"kksZa esa ,l0lh0bZ0vkj0Vh0 ujsUnzuxj fVgjh }kjk fo0ch0Vh0lh0 jkT; Lrjh; dkmfUlfyax ds mijkUr eSaus mRrjk[k.M ds fdlh Hkh tuin esa lgk;d v/;kid ds :i esa dk;Z ugha fd;k gS ;fn fdlh voLFkk esa ,rn~ fo"k;d rF; mtkxj gksrk gS rks fu;ekuqlkj esjk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k tk;saA 6- ;fn esjs CykWd esa fjfDr u gksus ds dkj.k fØ;kRed izf’k{k.k gsrq fo|ky; vkoaVu gfj}kj ds fdlh vU; CykWd esa fd; tkrk gS rks eq>s Lohdk;Z gksxkA 7- eSaus fo0ch0Vh0lh0 2006 ds iwoZ fdlh Hkh laLFkku esa fo0ch0Vh0lh0 izf”k{k.k mRrh.kZ ugha fd;k gSA ;fn fdlh Hkh voLFkk esa ;g rF; vlR; ik;k tkrk gS fd rks esjk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k tk;A 8- ¼dsoy efgyk LorU=rk laxzke lsukuh vkfJr vH;fFkZ;ksa ij ykxw½ fo0ch0Vh0lh0 2006 lEca/kh foKfIr dh frfFk 09 tqykbZ 06 dks eSa vfookfgr Fkh vkSj LorU=rk laxzke lsukuh Jh@Jherh --------------------------- lEcU/k ---------------------------dh vkfJr FkhA ;fn ;g rF;] vlR; ik;k tk; rks fu;ekuqlkj esjk vH;FkZu fujLr dj fn;k tk;sA” 4. On behalf of the petitioners, it is argued that the condition No. 7 is objectionable particularly on the ground that the same was not mentioned in the advertisement while inviting application for special B.T.C. course of 2006. This Court does not find any illegality in the condition contained in the format of affidavit. If a person, who has already successfully undergone special B.T.C. course earlier, naturally he cannot be permitted to seek fresh admission in another course for he has deprived one person from getting job earlier, who would have been in service. If the petitioner No. 1 has left his job after completing special B.T.C. course earlier, he cannot be given special treatment as the condition is applicable to one and all alike. 5. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any force in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dated. 10.10.2007 s