Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/105/2018 on 25 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
25TH July, 2023
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 105 of 2018
Between:
Rakesh Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
and
Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand
Through its Registrar General & others. ...Respondents
With
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 137 of 2018
Between:
Pratibha Tiwari ...Petitioner
and
Hon'ble High Court of Uttarakhand
Through its Registrar General & others. ...Respondents.
Counsel for the Petitioners : Mr. Vipul Sharma.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Pradeep Hairia, Standing
Counsel
Counsel for respondent nos. 3, : Mr. Piyush Garg & Mr. D.K. Bankoti, .
4,5,6,7,9,10,11,12, 13 & 14 Advocates.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court made the
following
ORDER: (Per Shri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
Learned counsel for petitioners has drawn our
attention to the Minutes of the Meeting of Selection &
Recruitment Committee, which is enclosed as Annexure-3 to
1
the counter affidavit. Relevant paragraphs of the said
document are extracted below:-
"On adjudging the suitability of aforesaid
candidates, members of the Committee found the
candidates mentioned at s. no. 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11,
12, 24, 25 & 26 'Not Suitable' for being promoted in the
H.J.S. cadre being their performance in the interview
was not up to the mark and all the members have
awarded low marks to them. These candidates,
namely, Sri Abdul Qayyum, Sri Mithilesh Jha,
Sri Nandan Singh, Ms. Deepali Sharma, Sri Arvind Nath
Tripathi, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Pratibha Tiwari,
Sri Rajoo Kumar Srivastava, Sri Kuldeep Sharma,
Ms. Geeta Chauhan, Ms. Meena Deopa and Ms. Rajani
Shukla are not being recommended for promotion to
the H.J.S. cadre at this stage.
Officers mentioned at S. No. 1, 3, 4 & 5, namely,
Sri Mithilesh Jha, Sri Rakesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Pratibha
Tiwari and Sri Kuldeep Sharma had qualified for Viva-
voce after clearing the Limited Competitive
Examination, but, on adjudging their performance in
Viva-voce on various aspects in addition to their
academic knowledge, as enumerated above, we found
that their performance in the Viva-voce was not up to
the mark and the members of the Selection Committee
have unanimously resolved not to recommend their
names for being inducted in the H.J.S. cadre, as they
were found 'Not Suitable' at this stage. Thus, we do
not recommend their names for promotion."
2. Based on the said document, it is contended that
since interview was only one of the component of the
selection process, which carried 25% weightage in the
selection for limited competitive examination, therefore, the
Committee erred in declaring candidates' named in the
aforesaid document, unsuitable for appointment to HJS, solely
on the basis of their performance in interview.
3. It is further contended that marks of written
examination ought not to have been disclosed to the
Committee, which was entrusted with the task of assessing
performance of candidates in interview, as it may affect
objectivity of the interview/viva-voce.
2
4. It is further contended that petitioners were also
eligible for promotion against 50% vacancies under Rule 5(a)
read with Rule 6(a) of Uttaranchal Higher Judicial Service
Rules, 2004, where interview had weightage of only 30% and
70% weightage was given for ACRs and judgments. It is
further contended that there is no minimum cut off marks for
viva-voce prescribed in the Rules, therefore, even though
performance of a candidate is found to be not satisfactory in
viva-voce, then also, his performance in other components of
selection process cannot be wiped out because of less marks
in viva-voce, and selection has to be based on the overall
performance of a candidate in different components of
selection process.
5. It is further contended that in the selection in
question, against seven available vacancies to be filled
through limited competitive examination, only two were
selected, likewise, against twelve vacancies, which were
available to be filled by promotion, only eleven candidates
were selected. Thus, according to him, although, petitioners
had applied for appointment to HJS under both sources, as
provided under Rule 5(a) and 5(b) of the aforesaid Rules,
however, despite availability of vacancies, they were denied
promotion, solely based on the remark made by the
Committee constituted to assess the performance of
candidates, in interview. Thus, it is contended that the
decision taken by the Committee not to recommend any of
the candidates named in the above extracted paragraphs is
beyond the mandate of Selection Committee, as the
Committee had to assess the merit of candidates in one of the
component of selection process, therefore, the Committee
could not have decided the fate of candidates in respect of all
other components of the selection process.
3
6. Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel appearing for
respondent no. 1 submits that the issue raised on behalf of
petitioners is not pleaded in the writ petition; therefore,
counter affidavit is silent on this aspect of the matter. He,
thus, seeks time to get instructions on the aforesaid aspect of
the matter.
7. Since the issue raised on behalf of petitioners may
have bearing on the outcome of the writ petition, therefore, it
would be in the fitness of things to grant opportunity to
respondent no. 1 to respond to the issue highlighted on
behalf of petitioners, today.
8. We, accordingly, grant three weeks' time to
respondent no. 1 to file supplementary counter affidavit.
9. List this case on 22.08.2023
___________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
______________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dated: 25th July, 2023
Navin
