Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/536/2019 on 11 October, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
11TH OCTOBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No. 536 OF 2019
Between:
Mohd. Imran Khan. ...Petitioner
and
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and another.
...Respondents
Counsel for the petitioner. : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted
by Ms. Sadaf, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondent No. 1 : Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.
Counsel for the respondent no. 2 : Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Standing Counsel for the
State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT : (per Sri Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
We have heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner has preferred present writ petition to
seek the following reliefs:
"I. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of certiorari quashing the impugned decision taken
by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to
repatriate the 4 posts of Forest Range Officer to the
government, communicated vide letter no.
453/01/E-1/2006-07 dated 03.01.2019 (Annexure
no. 1 to this writ petition).
II. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to declare
1
the result of 4 remaining posts in pursuance to the
Forest Range Officer Examination-2012, which was
conducted in pursuance to the advertisement no. E-
2/A-1/2011-12, dated 03.03.2012.
III. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondents to give
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Forest
Range Officer in accordance with the merit
list/advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Public
Service Commission bearing no.23/31/Gopan/Van
Chhetra Adhikari/2012-13, dated 10.07.2014
(Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition).
IV. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature
of mandamus directing the respondent to give the
appointment to the post of Forest Range Officer and
give same seniority in accordance with the merit list
of Forest Range Officer as per the result declared
on 10.07.2014, with all consequential benefits
which have been provided to other selected
candidates who were earlier given the appointment
as per the result dated 10.07.2014 (Annexure No. 3
to the writ petition)."
3. The relevant facts of the case are that an
advertisement was issued by the respondents for recruitment
against 60 posts of Forest Range Officer on 03.03.2012. Of
these, 22 posts were reserved and 38 posts were unreserved.
It appears the State reserved 04 posts for Aandolankaris, who
participated in the Aandolan for creation of the State of
Uttarakhand. That reservation was challenged before this
Court in a Public Interest Litigation, being WPPIL No. 67 of
2
2011. The respondents issued the list of 56 selected
candidates for their appointment. In respect of 04 posts,
since there was a challenge raised in the aforesaid writ
petition, the appointments were not made.
4. The case of the petitioner is that he was within the
merit list of 60 candidates, and he could not be appointed as
the reservation, which was under challenge, had been
granted. The petitioner also filed his own writ petition
challenging the reservation, being WPSB No. 396 of 2014,
which was also tagged along with the aforesaid PIL. The writ
petitions were allowed, and the reservation granted for the
Aandolankaris was quashed. In this process, about 06 years
were consumed.
5. The respondent-Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission surrendered the four vacancies, and did not
recommend appointment of the general category candidates
on the basis of merit. Consequently, the petitioner could not
secure his appointment.
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.
3
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
4
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.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no force in the
writ petition.
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
___________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C. J.
______________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
Dt: 11.10.2022
N/A
