Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/992/2020 on 1 December, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
SL. orders or proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and Registrar's
order with Signatures
01.12.2021
WPSS No. 992 of 2020
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel, for
the State.
Mr. B.S. Bhandari, Advocate, for the
respondent(s).
In pursuance to the advertisement
which was issued by the respondents for
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher
(Art), which was reserved for the Schedule
Caste candidates, the petitioner was one of the
aspirants, who had responded to the
advertisement dated 06.08.2012, which was
published in the Daily Newspaper 'Amar
Ujala', on 15.08.2012. The petitioner was
interviewed on 28.02.2016, and after the
participation in the scheduled interview, the
selection process had ultimately culminated but
the same was made as subject matter of
challenge in a writ petition, being Writ Petition
(S/S) No. 381 of 2016, Vandana Rathi Vs. State
of Uttarakhand and others, in which, the
coordinate Bench of this Court, by an interim
order dated 27.02.2016, had directed that the
selection process may go on, but the list of
selected candidates may not be disclosed and be
kept in a sealed envelope with the District
Inspector of School, Haridwar. However, the
said writ petition, in which the interim order
dated 27.02.2016 was passed, was later on
dismissed by the coordinate Bench of this Court
vide its judgment dated 17.09.2016.
In fact, the resultant effect of the
judgment dated 17.09.2016, would be, that the
interim order dated 27.02.2016 creating an
embargo in declaration of the list of selected
candidates; that was taken away by the ultimate
dismissal of the writ petition, hence the
petitioner's prayer in the writ petition was that
since she has participated in the selection
process, the result, which was directed to be
kept in the sealed envelope by virtue of the
Hon'ble Court's order dated 27.07.2016, that
may be directed to be opened. I think that
looking to the facts brought on record after the
dismissal of the writ petition on 17.09.2016,
there happens to be no legal embargo as such
created as a consequence of the interim order
passed on 27.02.2016, prohibiting the
respondents from declaring the result of the
selection process.
In view of the aforesaid facts, the
respondents are directed to declare the result of
the selection process, which has been kept in the
sealed envelope as a consequence of the interim
order dated 27.02.2016, provided there is no
other legal embargo. The declaration of the
result would be ensured to be done within a
period of one month.
The writ petition is disposed of
accordingly.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
01.12.2021
Mahinder/
