Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1935 UK
Judgement Date : 25 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 239 OF 2023
25TH JULY, 2023
BETWEEN:
Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission
.....Appellant.
And
State of Uttarakhand & others ....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. C.K. Sharma, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General.
Counsel for the Respondent No.4 : Mr. Ajit Warrier and Mr. Kurban Ali, learned counsels.
Counsel for the Respondent No.5 : Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
We have heard learned counsels for the parties,
and perused the impugned order.
2. The impugned order has been passed in the writ
petition preferred by respondent nos.5 and 6, being Writ
Petition (S/S) No.702 of 2023. The said respondents/ writ
petitioners had challenged the cancellation of the entire
examination process, initiated by the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission (for short "the
Commission") for recruitment to the post of Foresters. The
entire recruitment process was cancelled by the appellant-
Commission on the ground that there were large scale
irregularities found in the said recruitment process. The
examination process was an online examination; undertaken
by about 53,000 candidates. The cancellation was founded
upon the report of the National Stock Exchange for
Information and Technology (for short 'the NSEIT').
3. The learned Single Judge, prima facie, found merit
in the case of the respondents/ writ petitioners, and
consequently, stayed the conclusion of the fresh examination
process under the same recruitment process.
4. We are of the considered view that, even if, the
learned Single Judge, prima facie, found merit in the case of
the petitioners, staying the conclusion of the fresh
examination process was not called for, and the rights of the
petitioners could have been protected by directing that the
conclusion of the fresh examination process would be subject
to the outcome of the writ petition, and the participation of
the writ petitioners in the fresh examination process would be
without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
5. In the present writ petition, there were only two
writ petitioners. Mr. Kumar submits that there were other
similar petitions filed. However, even if all such petitions are
put together, they add upto only about, may be 15-20
individuals. The number of posts advertised were 316, and
thousands of candidates are looking to get selected in the
process.
6. That being the position, merely because a handful
of persons approached the Court, in our view, was not the
sufficient reason to stay conclusion of the fresh examination
process.
7. We, therefore, vacate the stay granted by the
learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated
22.06.2023, and permit the appellant to conclude the
selection process, in pursuance of the second examination,
which has been held. The same shall, however, be subject to
the final decision in the writ petition, and the participation of
the writ petitioners, or any of the other candidates, who may
have challenged the cancellation of the earlier examination,
would be without prejudice to their rights and contentions.
8. We are informed that the writ petition is now listed
before the learned Single Judge on 27.07.2023. We request
the learned Single Judge to endeavour to take up the writ
petition for hearing on the next date.
9. The special appeal stands disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.) Dated: 25th July, 2023 NISHANT
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!