JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. It appears from the perusal of the paragraphs 5 and 7 of the impugned order that the petitioner was never selected by the selection committee as that she had obtained lesser mark than the selected candidate. It also appears from the aforesaid paragraph that the petitioner had neither filed any certificate that she is a divorce nor she has filled up the requisite column in this regard in her application form, which is annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. Paragraph Nos. 5 and 7 of the impugned order is reproduced as under:- ^^izR;osfndk us lquokbZ ds le; ;g crk;k gS fd og ifjR;rk gksus ds dkj.k p;fur vH;fFkZuh Jherh ljLorh feJk ls ojh; vH;fFkZuh gS] ijUrq izR;kosfndk dk ;g dFku fd mlds }kjk izLrqr izkFkZuk&i= ls iqf"V ugha gksrh gSA izkFkZuk&i= ds dzekad 16 ij fo/kok@ifjR;rk izek.k&i= tkjhdrkZ ds uke o in o tkjh djus dh frfFk d u rks mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] vkSj u gh vkosnu&i= ds lkFk bl vk'k; dk izek.k&i= gh layXu gSA vkosnu&i= ds lkFk xzke iz/kku] Jh uUn fd'kksj jk; }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k fuokl izek.k&i= fnuakd 13-06-2004 layXu gS] ftlds vuqlkj og xzke pkaniqj] iksLV ykSokM+hg dh fuokfluh gSA mijksr ls Li"V gS fd izR;kosfndk dk p;u lfefr }kjk ugha fd;k x;k Fkk] D;ksafd og p;fur vH;fFkZuh ljLorh feJk ls de vad izkIr dh gS rFkk og ifjR;rk gksus dk u rks dksbZ izek.k&i= izLrqr fd;k gS vkSj u gh izkFkZuk&i= esa nkok gh fd;k gSA bl izdkj izFke n`"V;k p;u esa dksbZ vfu;ferrk ugha ik;h tkrh gSA** 3. It is also apparent from the order passed by the District Magistrate, Ghaziabad that he has considered the plea of the petitioner and also found that neither any certificate regarding the petitioner to be divorce has been appended with the form nor she had produced any such certificate. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the form appended along with writ petition as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition wherein at the bottom it has been mentioned that certificate regarding the petitioner being a divorce is being appended. 5. It appears that the whole of the form has been filled up by the candidate in her own hand writing except column at serial No. 16, which has been left blank. 5. It appears that the whole of the form has been filled up by the candidate in her own hand writing except column at serial No. 16, which has been left blank. This column at serial No. 16 requires the candidate to fill up by them to give the name and post of the person, issuing the certificate to the extent that the candidate is divorce. Had the petitioner appended aforesaid form, she would have definitely made mention about it in this column at serial No. 16 and give the date as well as the post and name of the authority issuing certificate. 6. It appears from the form as well as from paragraphs 5 and 7 of the aforesaid impugned orders passed by the District Magistrate dated 22.10.2005 that the petitioner had not appended the certificate in respect of her being a divorce. No case has been made by the petitioner showing any illegality or infirmity in the order impugned. 7. For the reasons stated above no interference is warranted by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.