SUNIL KUMAR PRASAD Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) It appears that on the basis of an advertisement for obtaining the BTC training, petitioner made an application but the same was not considered then the petitioner had filed a writ petition before this Court being a writ petition No. 49719 of 2009 which was finally disposed of by this Court on 11.9.2009 directing the relevant authority to pass the appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law. The relevant authority after considering the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the application submitted has recorded a specific finding that as there was a specific condition in the advertisement for annexing the domicile certificate and petitioner admittedly has not mentioned or annexed the domicile certificate, therefore, the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as there was no column mentioned in the form issued by the respondents, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to mention the said particular regarding domicile certificate though the same was annexed with the annexures but there was no mention as there was no condition.

(3.) This contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner has been rebutted by learned Standing Counsel stating therein that column 13 specifically mentions regarding the annexure annexed to the form. Only 10 columns have been mentioned and there is no mention of domicile certificate which is apparent from the order passed by the relevant authority. Therefore, the form submitted by the petitioner was not strictly in compliance with the condition of the advertisement, therefore, it was rightly rejected by the respondents.