DINESH CHANDRA BELWAL Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide order dtd. 13/2/2026, the respondent/State was directed to seek instructions in the matter. Though instructions have not been received, learned Advocates for respondent nos. 2 to 5 have appeared before this Court. They may file their vakalatnama in the Registry during the course of the day.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the premise that he is a Skill Development Growth Centre under the Hiltron Calc Centres and was doing work under the ITDA (Information Technology Development Agency) department. Suddenly, the petitioner was deprived of the work of the growth centre and respondent no.5 was assigned the said work by the ITDA. By the action on the part of respondent nos. 1 to 4, petitioner has been deprived of his livelihood; therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 to 4 submits that the petitioner was not an actual Skill Development Growth Centre. In the State of Uttarakhand, there are only two Skill Development Growth Centres, one at Pithoragarh and one at Rishikesh, whereas the petitioner was granted a franchisee by respondent no.2. The franchisee of the petitioner has lapsed and, for that reason, he has not been provided with the work.