TEJASWI KUMAR PANDEY Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.

(2.) Since affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and the parties do not propose to file any further affidavits, therefore, the matter is being disposed of finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

(3.) The petitioner applied for training under the 2004 B.T.C. Programme claiming himself to be a dependant of Freedom Fighter. The fact that the petitioner is a dependant of Freedom Fighter, has not been disputed in the counter affidavit and the only stand taken is that the petitioner's grand father was a Freedom Fighter from Jharkhand State and the certificate of Freedom Fighter has been issued from Jharkhand. In such a situation, the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondents takes a stand that this certificate having been issued from another State would not be acceptable so as to consider the candidature of the petitioner for training of B.T.C. course in the State of U.P.