Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1613 of 2001 (Old No.17788 of 1999) Pradeep Kumar Mittal S/o Sri Suresh Chandra Gupta, R/o 241, Brahampuri, Muzaffarnagar, U.P. ………… Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Welfare, Govt. of India, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. National Institution for Visually Handicapped (N.I.V.H.), 16, Rajpur Road, Dehradun, U.P. through its Director. 3. S.P. Bahuguna, Director-in-charge and Heard of the Special Education, N.I.V.H., 116 Rajpur Road, Dehradun, U.P. through its Drictor. 4. Lt. Col (Rete.) A.K.Verma, Deputy Director, N.I.V.H., 116 Rajpur Road, Dehradun, U.P. Through its Director, …………… Respondents. Dated: March 25, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. Sri A.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rakesh Thapliyal, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government/respondents. 2. The petitioner has prayed for writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give him an appropriate placement as a Teacher in the Integrated Scheme of Education for Visually Handicapped or in Blind Set up with effect form completion of the course form which he was illegally discharged with all the consequential benefits and salary. 3. The dischargc order dated 21.02.1985 is contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, which clearly proves that the petitioner was discharged from training and not form service. Since the petitioner could not complete his training of the diploma course required to be appointed as teacher under the Integrated Scheme of Education for Visually Handicapped or in Blind Set up, the petitioner cannot claim any right of being considered for appointment as teacher. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that aggrieved by the said order of discharge, the petition filed a Civil Suit, bearing No. 66 of 1985, Pradeed Kumar Mittal versus Union of India and others, in the court of Munsif, Dehradun on 26.2.1985. The injunction was refused by the court of Munsif and against the said rejection of the injunction application he filed an appeal before the District Judge, Dehradun, bearing No. 46 of 1985. The District Judge allowed the said appeal, granted injunction to the petitioner permitting him to appear in the examination of the diploma course conducted by the respondents. Be as it may, petitioner might have completed his diploma course but he cannot claim as a matter of right for appointment as there is no duty cast upon the State Government to appoint any diploma holder as a teacher under the Integrated Scheme of Education for Visually Handicapped or in Blind Set up. 5. To appoint a teacher under the said Scheme, besides diploma course, suitability and other tests have to be tested by the respondents. Therefore, the writ of mandamus cannot be issued in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. The petition has no merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) 25.03.2008 P. Singh