JUDGMENT Hon'ble M. M. Ghildiyal, J. : The petitioner by means of this writ petition has prayed for issue of mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him on the post of English Lecturer in the State of Uttaranchal and has further prayed to regularize his services and for giving seniority accordingly. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the State of U.P vide G.O. dated 22.07.1986 decided to fill up the vacancies of teachers/lecturers by inviting Anskalik (part time) teachers/lecturers till the regular appointments are made by the government. Under the scheme a provision was made to appoint part time teachers to deliver lecture and they were to be paid fixed remuneration per lecture. Since it was purely stop gap arrangement till the regular appointments are made, the said government order provides that even the services of retired teachers can be obtained on the terms and conditions mentioned in the G.O. The said government order was withdrawn by the State of U.P. by issuing another government order dated 11.07.1989. The petitioner who is an ex serviceman of the Army is post graduate in English and is duly qualified for the post of English lecturer as per Subordinate Service Commission Rules 1992, applied and was selected as a part time English lecturer on the terms and conditions mentioned in G.O. dated 22.07.1986. However, the services of the petitioner were discontinued in accordance with the G.O. dated 11.07.1989. The petitioner has alleged that on 20.08.1989 and 20.10.1990 advertisement was issued by the State of U.P. to fill up the posts of Assistant Teachers/ Lecturers on ad hoc basis. The petitioner also submitted his application through registered post. In pursuant to the above advertisement the government made 103 appointments. The petitioner has stated that though there was a pro-vision for 3% reservation to Ex-Servicemen of Army personnel he was not considered. Consequently, he made a representation, which too was not decided by the respondents. The petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Hon'ble High Court on 3.1.1994 directed the Additional Director of Education to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks. The Additional Director of Education vide order dated 23.3.1994 rejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner approached the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Hon'ble High Court on 3.1.1994 directed the Additional Director of Education to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three weeks. The Additional Director of Education vide order dated 23.3.1994 rejected the representation of the petitioner. The petitioner has alleged that his representation was rejected wrongly as the petitioner was claiming appointment under reservation of 3% fixed for Ex-Servicemen and no separate list of Ex-Servicemen candidates was prepared by the respondent. Learned Standing Counsel has filed counter affidavit. 3. Heard the petitioner in person and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 4. The petitioner has submitted that he is an Ex-Serviceman of the Army and there is a provision for 3% reservation to Ex-Servicemen. The respondent has not prepared a separate list of Ex-Servicemen and thus committed error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner under 3% reservation to Ex-Servicemen. On the other hand the learned S.C. in para no. 9 of the counter affidavit has submitted that before deciding the representation of the petitioner the merit list was properly examined by the Additional Director of Education and the petitioner was also afforded an opportunity of personal hearing and after hearing the petitioner and examining the entire record the Additional Director of Education found that the petitioner was on 5th place in the merit list of the reserved category for Ex-Servicemen and the reserved posts for Ex-Servicemen were in three in number and as such the petitioners could not be selected. The petitioner in his rejoinder affidavit has stated that no separate merit list for Ex-Servicemen was prepared. Learned S.C. was given time to produce separate merit list prepared for Ex-Servicemen. However, he could not produce the same despite time granted repeatedly. Learned S.C. has tried to explain on the basis of order passed by the Additional Director of Education dated 23.3.1994 that there was a separate merit list prepared for Ex-Servicemen. He has further submitted that the petitioner has become over-age. It has been submitted by learned S.C. that after discontinuing of the scheme on 11.7.1989 there was agitation by the Anskalik teachers to regularize their services. The government considering the demand passed an order that the Anskalik candidates will get weightage in the open appointments. The appointments were made in the year 1991 and 1992. It has been submitted by learned S.C. that after discontinuing of the scheme on 11.7.1989 there was agitation by the Anskalik teachers to regularize their services. The government considering the demand passed an order that the Anskalik candidates will get weightage in the open appointments. The appointments were made in the year 1991 and 1992. However, the petitioner could not get appointment because there were only 3 posts reserved under the category of Ex-Servicemen whereas the petitioner could found place at serial no. 5. The government also issued order making a provision for relaxation of age to these part time teachers to the extent that they have served as a part time teacher. The petitioner who was recruited in the army on 10.7.1971 was discharged from Army on 31.5.1987. In common parlance Ex-Servicemen would mean any person who had served in the army but for the purpose of employment and other concession the Government of India has defined the term Ex-Servicemen. The petitioner falls under the following category. ©"Those released on or after July 79 but before 1 July 87: Any person who had served in any rank (whether as a Combatant or as Non-Combatant) in the Armed Forces of the Union for a continuous period of not less six months after attestation if discharged for reasons other than at their own request and not less than 5 years of service if discharged at own request. 5. From the discharge certificate it is clear that the petitioner was discharged on 31.5.1987 and was discharged at his own request and as such he comes within the definition of Ex-Serviceman. The date of birth of -the petitioner as per discharge certificate is 15.9.1953. Since there is a dispute whether separate merit list of Ex-Servicemen was prepared or not it will be proper to issue direction to the Director of Education to decide the matter afresh after considering the fact whether a separate merit list for Ex-Servicemen was prepared or not and further to decide whether the petitioner was eligible to be appointed considering his age on the relevant date when the open appointments were made. The Director of Education while deciding the matter will ensure that the petitioner is given relaxation in the age as per government order issued in favour of part time teachers as well as age relaxation rules provided for Ex-Servicemen. 6. The Director of Education while deciding the matter will ensure that the petitioner is given relaxation in the age as per government order issued in favour of part time teachers as well as age relaxation rules provided for Ex-Servicemen. 6. For the reasons stated above we direct the Director of Education, Uttaranchal to decide the representation of the petitioner afresh considering the fact whether a separate merit list for Ex-Servicemen was prepared or not and whether he was eligible to be appointed as lecturer after giving relaxation in age as per rules. The Director of Education will decide the matter within period of one month from today and will communicate the decision to the petitioner within a week thereafter. 7. With these observations the writ petition is disposed of finally. No order as to the costs.