Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/431/2021 on 4 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
SHRI JUSTICE S.K. MISHRA, A.C.J.
AND
SRI JUSTICE R.C. KHULBE, J.
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 431 OF 2021
4th MARCH, 2022
Between:
Vikasdeep Dhanola ...Appellant.
and
Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection
Commission and another. ...Respondents
Counsel for the appellant: Mr. Abhijay Negi,
learned counsel.
Counsel for the respondents: Mr. Pankaj Purohit,
learned counsel for
respondent No. 1.
Ms. Devika Tiwari,
learned proxy counsel
for Mr. Bhupender
Singh Bisht, learned
counsel for respondent
No. 2.
Upon hearing the learned counsel, the Court made
the following:
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Justice S.K. Mishra, A.C.J.)
In this Special Appeal, the State has
challenged the judgment dated 21.06.2021 passed by
the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 624
of 2021, wherein the appellant was the petitioner and
he had sought the following reliefs:
"i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus commanding the Respondent No.
1 to treat the candidature of Petitioner under
General (Male) candidate for the post of Junior
Engineer (Civil) Post Code 131 & Post Code
532/214/24/2020 and placed the petitioner at
suitable place in the Result dated 25.03.2021
and in Merit List for the post of Junior Engineer
(Civil) Post Code 131 & Post Code
532/214/24/2020.
ii. Issue any other writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the
circumstances of the case.
iii. Award the cost of the petition. "
2. Pursuant to Advertisements dated
09.07.2019 and 28.02.2020, the petitioner applied for
the post of Junior Engineer in the Uttarakhand Peyjal
Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam/respondent
No.2. While filling-up the form, instead of clicking on
the 'male' gender option, he erroneously clicked on the
option for 'female' gender, and, therefore, he was
treated as a female in the selection process, and he
was selected as a Junior Engineer in the Uttarakhand
Peyjal Sansadhan Vikas Evam Nirman
Nigam/respondent No.2 as an unreserved female
candidate. Since the petitioner is not a female
candidate, he filed the writ application seeking the
relief quoted above.
3. The learned Single Judge after taking into
consideration the entire thing has dismissed the writ
petition. The main grounds that have been taken by
the learned Single Judge are Paragraph Nos.5,6 & 7 of
the judgment dated 21.06.2021. We feel it
appropriate to quote the said paragraphs:-
"5. Mr. N.S. Pundir, the learned counsel for
respondent No. 1, had drawn the attention of
this Court to clause 13(8) of the said
advertisement also, which is referred to
hereunder:-
**¼8½ vkWuykbu vkosnu Hkjus ds iwoZ foKkiu esa of.kZr leLr
funsZ"kksa dk Hkyh&Hkkafr v/;;u dj ys rFkk vkWuykbu vkosnu i=
dks lgh&lgh HkjsaA vk;ksx esa vkWuykbZu vkosnu i= izLrqr dj
fn, tkus ds mijkUr ewy vkosnu i= esa n"kkZ, x,
[email protected]"V;ksa esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk ifjorZu fdlh Hkh n"kk
esa vuqeU; ugha gksxkA**
6. It provides that it is the absolute responsibility
of a candidate, who is applying under the
advertisement to be extremely cautions to fill in
all the columns correctly, because thereafter no
changes were held to be permissible at the
behest of the candidate and quite logically too.
7. This Court is of the view that apart from the
fact that the petitioner is extending his
candidature for the post of J.E., he has had to be
diligent enough at the time of filling of the
application form and he would simultaneously be
bound by the terms and conditions of the
advertisement, itself which explains and
stipulates that any correction in the application
form which has been submitted by the applicant
online would not be permitted and hence for the
said error, once the said amendment is not
permitted, the writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, cannot be invoked to
reshuffle the entire selection exercise and the
select list too, by permitting the petitioner to
carry out the amendment and to change his
category from general (female), which has opted
to general (male), which he actually is.
4. Since it is the absolute responsibility of the
candidate, who is applying in respect of the
advertisement, to be careful in providing information,
we are of the opinion that the order passed by the
learned Single Judge does not suffer from any illegality
or impropriety requiring our interference. Moreover, it
is seen that if we allow the petitioner to join the post
of Junior Engineer (Male), then as a natural corollary
to it, it will entail removal of the person, who has
already been engaged and appointed in the selection,
and for no fault of him, he would suffer. Moreover, if
we allow the prayer of the petitioner and accede to the
prayer, one person, who has not been made party to
the writ petition or the Special Appeal, shall be
adversely affected.
5. Hence, we find no merit in the Special Appeal.
The Special Appeal is, therefore, dismissed being
devoid of merit.
6. No order as to costs.
7. In sequel thereto, pending application, if any,
also stands disposed of.
8. Urgent copy of the order be issued to the parties
as per rules.
____________
(S.K. MISHRA),
A.C.J.
____________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 04.03.2022
Rathour
