Uttarakhand High Court
Unknown vs Ankur Gupta" on 6 January, 2021
THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
ON THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE:
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE LOK PAL SINGH
WRIT PETITOIN (S/S) NO.1661 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Anuj Kumar Saini,
S/o ShriChatar Singh,
R/o Village Jawahar Khan @Jhiwarheri, Tehsil
Laksar, District Haridwar.
.....Petitioner.
(By ShriAjay Veer Pundir, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Uttarakhand, through Principal
Secretary, Homes, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun.
2. Director General of Police, P.H.Q., Subash Road,
Dehradun.
3. Superintendent of Police, Uttarkashi.
.....Respondents.
(By ShriNarainDutt, learned Brief Holder for the
State/respondents).
ORDER
This writ petition is filed seeking for a writ
of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated
11.05.2017 and 25.05.2017 passed by respondent
nos.2 and 3 respectively, and to issue a writ of
mandamus directing the respondents to give
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub
Inspector under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents
of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974 (for short 'the 1974 Rules'), as applicable in
Uttarakhand.
2. Earlier Writ Petition (S/S) No.99 of 2013
was filed by the petitioner before this Hon'ble Court.
The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court by its judgment and
order dated 30.03.2017 with a direction to the
respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for
appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector within a
period of ten weeks from the date of the order.
3. By the impugned order dated 11.05.2017,
respondent no.2 rejected the claim of the petitioner
on the ground that, in view of the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of "State of
Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta", rendered in Civil Appeal
No.6950 of 2003 on 03.09.2003, the dependents of
the deceased employee cannot claim appointment on
a particular post.The purpose of appointment under
the 1974 Rules is just to provide immediate financial
assistance to the family of the deceased. It is further
stated that the age for appointment on the post of
Sub-Inspector is 21 years to 28 years and the
petitioner has attained the age of about 35 years. For
these two reasons, the claim of the petitioner for
appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector has been
rejected.
4. Rule 8 of the 1974 Rules reads as under:-
"8. Relaxation from age and other
requirements.- (1) The candidate seeking
appointment under these rules must not be less
than 18 years at the time of appointment.
(2) The procedural requirements for
selection, such as written test or interview by a
selection committee or any other authority, shall
be dispensed with, but it shall be open to the
appointing authority to interview the candidate in
order to satisfy itself that the candidate will be
able to maintain the minimum standards of work
and efficiency expected on the post.
(3) An appointment under these rules shall
be made against an existing vacancy only".
5. When this Court heard the writ petition and
was conscious of the fact that the order dated
11.05.2017, was passed by respondent no.2 by
ignoring the directions issued by this Court in the Writ
Petition (S/S) No.99 of 2013 dated 30.03.2017 and
the authority concerned has tried to sit over the
judgment of this Court and has acted as an appellate
authority, then this Court had directed to ensure the
presence of the Inspector General of Police, Head
Quarters, Karmik by order dated 14.05.2018.
6. It is stated that the respondents have given
the appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector to the
similarly situated candidates, but since the petitioner
has approached this Court, the respondents are not
considering the case of the petitioner. It is averred
that, at the time of deciding the writ petition by this
Court by its judgment and order dated 30.03.2017,
the respondents did not raise the plea that the
petitioner is not entitled for appointment on the post
of Sub-Inspector as per his claim. Furthermore, the
respondents did not raise the plea that the petitioner
has become overage andtherefore, he is not entitled
for appointment.
7. On perusal of the record, it would reveal
that the contention of the respondents that the
petitioner cannot claim appointment on the post of
Sub-Inspector, in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of "State of Haryana vs.
Ankur Gupta", rendered in Civil Appeal No.6950 of
2003 dated 03.09.2003, is an afterthought. Another
ground raised by the respondents is that the age for
appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector is from 21
years to 28 years. The averment made by the
respondents, in this regard, is untenable for the
reason that for appointment under the 1974 Rules,
the age has no relevance. Further, it seems to this
Court that this ground of age, raised by the
respondents, is an afterthought and it is only just to
defeat the claim of the petitioner for appointment that
the unwanted reasons have been assigned.
8. Since in view of the provisions of Rule 8 of
the 1974 Rules, the petitioner is entitled for
appointment under the said Rules as per his
qualification and the reasons shown by the
respondents denying the claim for appointment to the
petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector are
unsustainable in the eyes of law.
9. In so far as the criteria of age from 21
years to 28 years is concerned, it is made clear that
the same is not applicable while giving appointment
under the 1974 Rules.
10. For the reasons stated above, the writ
petition is liable to be allowed and is hereby
allowed.The orders dated 11.05.2017 and 25.05.2017
passed by respondent nos.2 and 3 are untenable in
law and the same are hereby quashed. A mandamus
is issued to the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub-
Inspector, as he fulfills the requisite qualification. The
respondents are directed to complete the entire
exercise within a period of three months from today.
11. Pending application, if any, stands disposed
of.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.)
NISHANT
