Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/353/2021 on 28 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 353 OF 2021
28th NOVEMBER, 2022
Between:
Pushpa Adhikari ...... Petitioner
and
State of Uttarakhand & others ...... Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Tarun Prakash Singh Takuli, learned
counsel
Counsel for the respondents : Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Standing
Counsel for the State / respondent Nos.
1 and 2
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT: (per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
The petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition to seek the following relief:
"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
mandamus directing the respondents to give
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Professor - B.Ed. (Technical Syllabus) English in order
to the advertisement No. 01/03/D.R./Sewa-2/2017-18
dated 04.08.2017 as the petitioner secured the second
highest marks in the interview i.e. 70 and the
appointment of the selected candidate has already
2
cancelled as she has not joined her place of posting,
else the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and
injury and the same cannot be compensated by any
means."
2) The case of the petitioner is that the respondents
had issued the advertisement for conduct of the Assistant
Professor (Rajkiya Mahavidhyalaya, Uttarakhand) Pariksha-
2017, wherein for B.Ed. (Technical Syllabus) several posts
were advertised, including three posts in English, which
consisted of one post reserved for Scheduled Caste; one
post reserved for Other Backward Class; and one post for
the General category. The further case of the petitioner is
that the petitioner participated in the said selection process.
The result of the selection process for the post in question
was declared on 29.01.2020, wherein one Renu Dabral was
shown at the top of the list having secured 72 marks. The
petitioner was shown at Sl. No. 2, having secured 70 marks.
3) The further case of the petitioner is that Renu
Dabral did not join the said post. Consequently, according
to the petitioner, the said post should have been offered to
the petitioner. However, the respondents instead of offering
the said post to the petitioner, issued a fresh advertisement
on 25.06.2021, in respect of the said post.
3
4) The petitioner places reliance on Rule 15(3) of the
Uttaranchal Higher Education (Group A) Service Rules, 2003.
Rule 15(3) of the said Rules, reads as follows:
"15(3) The Commission shall prepare a list of
candidates in order of their proficiency as disclosed by the
marks obtained by each candidate in the interview. If two
or more candidates obtain equal marks, the Commission
shall arrange their names in order of merit on the basis of
their general suitability for the Service. The number of the
names in the list shall be more (but not more than 25
percent) than the number of the vacancies. The
Commission shall forward the list to the Appointing
Authority:
Provided that the candidates from the merit list shall
be appointed only against those posts for which they are
selected."
(emphasis supplied)
5) According to the petitioner, since there were three
posts in English, which consisted of one post for S.C.; one
post for O.B.C.; and one General category post, the
respondents were obliged to maintain a wait list. Therefore,
the wait list of one person should have been prepared, and
since the petitioner was the candidate having the second
highest marks, she should have been included in the wait
list, and offered the post when the topper Renu Dabral did
not join the said post.
4
6) On the other hand, the respondents placed
reliance on, inter alia, Rule 9 of the Uttarakhand Lok Sewa
Ayog Pariksha Parinaam Nirmaan Prakriya Niyamawali,
2012. The said Rules, reads as follows:
"9- izfr{kk lwph
Pk;u gsrq inksas dh lsok fu;ekoyh es ;fn izkfo/kku gSa rks fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k ls
vf/kd (fdUrq iPPkhl izfr'kr ls vuf/kd) ukeksa dh lwph rS;kj dh tk,xh] 'kklukns'k la0
[email protected](2)@2005 fnukad 26-08-2005 ds vuqlkj yksd lsok vk;ksx }kjk vk;ksftr
izfr;ksfxrkRed ijh{kkvksa es ,dy laoxZ ds inksa dks NksMdj lEkLr lfEefyr lsokvksa ,ao
vU; p;uksa esa izfr{kk lwph dk fuekZ.k ugha fd;k tk,xk vkSj uk gh fdlh izdkj ds
fj'kQfyax dh dk;Zokgh dh tk,xhA"
7) The submission of learned counsel for the
respondents is that, since only one post in English was
available to General category candidate, and the petitioner,
in any event, could not have been appointed against the
post reserved for either the Scheduled Caste, or for the
Other Backward Class, under Rule 9 of the aforesaid Rules,
the respondents decided not to maintain a wait list, or
operate the same.
8) We have heard learned counsels for the parties.
9) In our view, there is no merit in the petitioner's
submission. Even if the submission of the petitioner were to
be accepted, that the wait list should have been prepared by
5
considering 03, and not one post in English Language, even
then the wait list of 01 candidate would translate to 33%,
which would exceed the marks limit of 25%, as prescribed
both in Rule 15(3) of the Uttaranchal Higher Education
(Group A) Service Rules, 2003, and Rule 9 of the
Uttarakhand Lok Sewa Ayog Pariksha Parinaam Nirmaan
Prakriya Niyamawali, 2012. Therefore, the action of the
respondents in not preparing the wait list cannot be faulted.
10) For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in the
writ petition, and the same is accordingly dismissed.
_________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________
R.C. KHULBE, J.
Dt: 28th NOVEMBER, 2022
Negi
