UKHC010137882026 2026:UHC:6889 1 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Service Single No. 2076 of 2026 05 August, 2026 Deepender Mehra --Petitioner Versus State Of Uttarakhand & others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Dabral, learned Additional C.S.C. along with Mr. Bhupendra Koranga, learned Brief Holder for the State. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for respondent no.2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Petitioner responded to the advertisement issued by the Selecting Body-UKSSC dated 16.02.2024 inviting applications for the post of Instructor (Employability Skills) in Government ITIs. Petitioner passed the written examination. However, subsequently, during document verification, it was found that petitioner was not holding the qualification of TOT (Training of Trainers) from an Industrial Training Institute run by the Directorate of Training by the State Government. Therefore, petitioner was not selected. Petitioner has challenged the non-selection by filing the present writ petition. 2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, in view of the Office Memorandum dated 30.06.2023, annexure-6 to the writ petition, if the selected candidate is not in possession of the TOT Qualification, the same can be obtained within one year UKHC010137882026 2026:UHC:6889 2 from the date of the appointment. To substantiate his argument, petitioner has relied upon para 6, Clause (ii), which is quoted herein below:- “(ii) Any selected candidate who has not done CITS or any other form of pedagogy training shall undergo Pedagogy training within one year from the date of appointment.” 3. From bare perusal of the said Clause, it is reflected that it is meant for a selected candidate who has not undergone CITC or any other form of pedagogy training and shall undergo such pedagogy training within one year from the date of appointment. However, in the case at hand, petitioner has not even been selected, and therefore, there is no question of offering an appointment to him by the State Government. Further, it does not speak for qualification of T.O.T. which is an essential qualification under the advertisement. 4. In such view of the matter, this Court cannot find fault with the Selecting Body for not selecting the petitioner, as the petitioner lacked the qualification required under Clause 5(v)(1) of the advertisement. Thus, no interference is warranted. The writ petition is hereby dismissed in-limine. 5. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of accordingly. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 05.08.2026 AK AVNEET KAUR Digitally signed by AVNEET KAUR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=a82175252dc1a0f53f0e245a1c11df9aa490cfd1403838bf52f9acab4cc3a5b9, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=5BEC18DADE54688668187E4D722C2EDBFDAF35AB2F676A551481BE62508FDDEE, cn=AVNEET KAUR Date: 2026.08.05 18:23:29 +05'30'