Uttarakhand High Court
Awadh Bihari And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 8 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
Writ Petition(S/B) No. 13 of 2019
Awadh Bihari and Another ......Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others ......Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the
State/respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Mr. Alok Mahra, learned Standing Counsel for the
Commission/respondent no.3.
JUDGMENT (Oral: Shri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
The petitioners have preferred the present writ
petition to seek the following reliefs:-
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Certiorari calling for the records and quashing
the impugned Minutes of Meeting dated 4th
December 2018 of the Uttarakhand Public
Service Commission; whereby the decision has
been taken to carry forward 06 vacancies on the
post of Vice Principal in Govt. Inter Colleges and
other equivalent posts of the Uttarakhand
Combined Civil Services/ Upper Subordinate
Examination-2010 for which the results were
withheld subject to the final decision to be
of 2011.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
Mandamus commanding and directing the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to
prepare the merit list and declare the result of
06 vacancies on the post of Vice Principal, Govt.
Inter College and other equivalent posts of the
Uttarakhand Combined Civil Services/ Upper
Subordinate Examination-2010 and
consequently recommend the name of the
selected candidates in view of the judgment
dated 7th March 2018 and the consequential
Govt. Order dated 5th December 2018 issued by
the State Govt.
2. We had occasioned to deal with a similar Writ
Petition (S/B) No. 536 of 2019, which we dismissed after
hearing the learned counsels on 11.10.2022. The relevant
extract from the said decision reads as follows:-
"6. The case of the petitioner is that, in case the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission had made the
recommendations for appointment, the petitioner would
have secured appointment against one of the 04 posts of
Forest Range Officers.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action of the Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission, the petitioner has preferred
the present writ petition.
8. We had asked learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner on the previous date of hearing to satisfy us,
as to what vested right the participants in a public
recruitment process have, to seek a mandamus that they
should be appointed against the vacancies for which the
advertisement was issued. No satisfactory answer has
been given by Mr. Khan to this query.
9. In fact, the settled position in law is, that a person,
whose name appears in the select list has no vested right
that he/she should be given appointment, and it is up to
the employer to take a decision whether, or not, to fill up
the existing vacancies. It is not the petitioner's case that
the respondents have resorted to discrimination by
giving appointments to a less meritorious candidate. As
noticed hereinabove, the recruitment process was
initiated way back in March, 2012. The decision of the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission not to fill up the
four posts after lapse of six years-when the Public
Interest Litigation was decided on 07.03.2018, cannot be
said to be arbitrary or unreasonable. In the meantime,
score of other persons would have become eligible to
offer their candidature for the post in question, and their
interest, as well as the interest of administration to
recruit fresh blood justifies the decision taken by the
respondents not to proceed with appointment against the
four posts in question.
10. We may also refer to the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Shankarsan Dash V. Union of India, (1991)
3 SCC 47, where the Supreme Court has held that there
is no vested right in a selected candidate to demand or
claim that he/she should be appointed against the
advertised post."
3. Mr. Saharia, learned counsel for the petitioner
fairly states that though the present case is covered by our
decision in Writ Petition (S/B) No.536 of 2019, the Division
Bench while disposing of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 113 of
2015, Santosh Kumar Juyal Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
other directed in para no.6 as follows:-
"6. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by
directing that the Commission will consider the matter
and take a decision in the matter in relation to the three
posts of Commercial Tax Officer in the light of the
judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011 and do the needful as per
law. A decision will be taken in this regard at the earliest
and every effort will be made to conclude the process
within a period of 10 weeks from today."
4. He submits that consequently the respondents
were obliged to take a decision and fill up the remaining
three posts by inviting the meritorious candidates, which
included the petitioners as reservation for Andolankaris
have been quashed and vacancies were available.
5. We have heard Mr. Saharia and considered the
submission. Firstly, we have rendered our decision in
identical facts in WPSB No. 536 of 2019 and we do not see
any reason to take any different view in the matter. Even
the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Santosh
Kumar Juyal (supra), in our view, does not come to the aid
of the petitioner as all that the Division Bench directed was
that the Commission will consider the matter and take a
decision in the matter in relation to the three posts of
Commercial Tax Officer, in light of the fact that the
reservation for Andolankaris have been quashed.
Pertinently, the Division Bench did not issue a mandamus
to the Commission to fill up the said three posts of
Commercial Tax Officer from amongst the candidates, who
were in wait list.
6. The process for selection having been started in
the year 2011, the respondents have sufficient justification
to decide not to fill up the said posts in the year 2018 and
to carry forward the posts for being filled up in the next
selection process.
7. We are, therefore, of the view that the judgment
in Santosh Kumar Juyal (supra) does not come to the aid
of the petitioner. In fact, the same shows that the Division
Bench was conscious of the fact that the respondent-
Commission may or may not decide to fill up the said posts
from amongst the meritorious candidates, according to
their merit in the wait list.
8. We, accordingly, dismiss this petition.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 8th December, 2022
BS/SK
