Uttarakhand High Court
Soyyab Hussain And Others ...... ... vs Uttarakhand Public Service ... on 15 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
15th SEPTEMBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION (S/B) No.488 OF 2022
Soyyab Hussain and Others ...... Petitioners
Vs.
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ....Respondent
Presence: -
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners.
Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
Mr. Joshi has tendered in Court a sealed
envelope containing the record of the respondent showing
consideration by the concerned Committee of the issue
raised by this Court in the order dated 04.07.2022 in
WPSB No.336 of 2022. The operative direction by us in
our order dated 04.07.2022 in WPSB No.336 of 2022
reads as follows:-
"13. We, accordingly, dispose of this Writ
Petition while directing the respondents to place
the matter with regard to consideration of the
answer-key in respect of Question No.106 of
Book-Series "D" - Paper-I (General Studies) for
reconsideration in the light of the present
judgment and the judgment of the Supreme
Court in M/s Mar Appraem Kuri (supra). The
reconsideration shall take place within two
weeks of the date of production of the certified
copy of this judgment."
2. The reconsideration which has taken place
reads as follows:-
"माननीय उ�राखण्ड उच्च न्यायालय, नैनीताल द्वारा �रट
�पट�शन संख्या (एस/बी) 336/ 2022 म� पा�रत �नणर्य �दनां�कत
04.07.2022 म� यह आदेश पा�रत �कया गया था �क "we are only
directing the Expert Committee of the respondents to
re-examine their decision qua Question No. 106 keeping
in view the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s Mar
Appraem Kuri (supra)."
माननीय न्यायालय के आदेश के अनुपालन म� उ�राखण्ड
सिम्म�लत राज्य �स�वल / प्रवर अधीनस्थ सेवा प्रारिम्भक पर��ा -
2021 के प्रथम प्रश्न पत्र - सामान्य अध्ययन क� प्रश्न पुिस्तका सीर�ज
डी के प्रश्न संख्या 106 (जो �क ए सीर�ज का प्रश्न संख्या 47, बी
सीर�ज का प्रश्न संख्या 21 एवं सी सीर�ज का प्रश्न संख्या 141 है।) पर
पुन�वर्चार �कया गया।
इस सन्दभर् म� माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय के �नणर्य M/s Mar
Appraem Kuri (supra) का अवलोकन �कया गया तथा साथ ह�
�कसी अ�ध�नयम के प्रभाव म� आने के सन्दभर् म� THE GENERAL
CLAUSES ACT, 1897 का भी अवलोकन �कया गया, िजसक� धारा 5
म� यह प्रावधा�नत �कया गया है-
5. Coming into operation of enactments. - 2[(1)
Where any Central Act is not expressed to come
into operation on a particular day, then it shall
come into operation on the day on which it receives the
assent,-
(a) in the case of a Central Act made before the
commencement of the Constitution, of the Governor-
General, and
(b) in the case of an Act of Parliament, of the
President.]
चूं�क, उ�रांचल (नाम प�रवतर्न) अ�ध�नयम - 2006 के
अिस्तत्व म� आने के सम्बन्ध म� अ�ध�नयम क� धारा 1 (2) म� स्पष्ट रूप
प्रा�वधा�नत है �क "it shall came into force as such date as
the Central Government may, by notification in the
official Gazette appoint"
उक्त अ�ध�नयम के प्रभाव म� आने के सन्दभर् म� भारत सरकार
द्वारा राजपत्र असाधारण भाग-॥ खण्ड 3-उपखण्ड (i) �दनांक: 29
�दसम्बर 2006 जार� �कया गया िजसम� �नम्नवत् उल्लेख �कया गया है-
G.S.R. 779 (E)-In exercise of the powers
conferred by Sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the
Uttaranchal (Alteration of Name) Act, 2006 (52 of
2006), the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st
day of January, 2007, as the date on which the
provisions of the said Act shall come into force.
उक्त से यह स्पष्ट है �क उ�रांचल (नाम प�रवतर्न) अ�ध�नयम
2006 �दनांक: 01 जनवर�, 2007 को ह� अिस्तत्व म� आया।
उक्त �वश्लेषण के आधार पर उपयुर्क्त प्रश्न पुिस्तका सी�रज A,
B, C and D म� व�णर्त प्रश्न संख्या क्रमशः 47, 21, 141 एवं 106 का
2
उ�र �वकल्प 'D' (इनम� से कोई नह�ं) सह� पाया गया।
अतः पुनः पर��णोपरान्त अनुशंसा क� जाती है �क उक्त प्रश्न का
उ�र �वकल्प 'D' ह� सह� है।"
3. The record produced shows that the Committee
consisted of the six persons.
4. The question that the Committee was required
to examine reads as follows:-
"106. The Uttaranchal (Change of Name) Act, came into
existence in which of the following years?
(a)2000 (b)2003 (c) 2006 (d)None of these"
5. A perusal of the consideration of the Committee
shows that unfortunately, the Committee has not even
correctly understood the aforesaid question no.106. The
question is as to in which year the Uttaranchal (Change of
Name) Act came into existence. The question was not as
to when the Uttaranchal (Change of Name) Act was
enforced. The consideration by the Committee shows that
it has proceeded on the assumption that the question was
as to when the aforesaid Act was enforced. The
Committee concludes that the Act was enforced on
01.01.2007 and on that basis it concluded that since 2007
was not one of the options (a), (b) or (c), the correct
answer was the option (d) - i.e. 'none of these'.
6. We are truly dismayed at the lack of
understanding displayed by the Committee of the plain
language of the aforesaid question no.106. It is clear to
us that the decision of the Committee suffers from gross
non-application of mind.
7. In these circumstances, in the light of our
observations made in paragraph nos.7 to 12 of our
judgment in WPSB No.336 of 2022 dated 04.07.2022, we
allow the present petition and hold that the correct
3
answer to question no.106 in Booklet Series 'D' of Paper-I
(General Studies) was option (c) i.e. 2006.
8. We, therefore, direct the respondent to grant
marks to the petitioner and the other candidates in the
light of our decision and to publish the merit list
accordingly.
9. Before parting with this case, we again express
our anguish about the competence displayed by the
Expert Committee. We direct that a copy of this judgment
be placed before the Chairperson of the Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission for taking appropriate remedial
measures so as to ensure that in future the experts
should be truly knowledgeable, competent and intelligent
persons.
10. The writ-petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 15th September, 2022
BS/SS
