Uttarakhand High Court
Shivani Kohli vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 24 March, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHRI ALOK KUMAR VERMA
24TH MARCH, 2023
WRIT PETITION NO.459 OF 2014
Shivani Kohli ..... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ......Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. A.M. Saklani, Advocate
with Mr. M.C. Upadhyay,
Advocate.
Counsel for the State/ : Mr. J.C. Pandey, Standing,
Respondent No.1 Counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent : Mr. Sandeep Kothari,
No.3 : Advocate.
Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this
Court made the following judgment :
(Per : Shri Alok Kumar Verma, J.)
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly do not
oppose the Application (MCC No.14102 of 2022) seeking
restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed in
default on 21.03.2022 as well as the Application (IA
No.14103 of 2022) seeking condonation of delay in filing
the Application for restoration.
2
Accordingly, both these Applications are allowed.
2. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission,
respondent no.2, issued an Advertisement on 28.09.2013
inviting applications from the candidates for 24 posts of the
Uttarakhand Judicial Service-Civil Judge (Junior Division).
Out of total advertised 24 posts, four posts were available
for the Scheduled Caste category and one post was for
Scheduled Caste Uttarakhand Female candidate. The said
Advertisement included the particulars required to be filled
up by the candidates. It was provided inter alia in para 1 of
the Advertisement-
Applicants must disclose their category/ sub-
category related to their vertical/horizontal
reservation in the online applications. In
case of non-claiming of reservation, the
benefit of reservation will not be allowed to
the applicants in view of the order dated
08.06.2010 passed by the High Court and
the Order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No.(S)19532 of 2010.
3. The case of the petitioner is that she is a resident
of Uttarakhand belonging to the Scheduled Caste category.
She filled the application form. The final result of the
examination was declared. Petitioner had secured 462
3
marks, whereas, respondent no.3 obtained 441 marks.
Respondent no.3 was selected. Respondent no.2 has
wrongly shown the category of petitioner as Scheduled
Caste only, but has not shown the petitioner as to
Scheduled Caste Uttarakhand Female candidate. Based on
the marks obtained by the petitioner, she is entitled to be
included in the select list. Petitioner submitted a
representation on 02.12.2014 before respondent no.2, but
the respondent no.2 did not response to the said
representation. Therefore, she has filed the present writ
petition.
4. Mr. A.M. Saklani, learned counsel for the
petitioner, contended that petitioner is a domicile of State of
Uttarakhand and she had submitted her application form as
Scheduled Caste candidate, therefore, she should be
considered for selection as against Scheduled Caste
Uttarakhand Female.
5. On the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned
counsel for respondent no.3, contended that petitioner
claimed for the benefit of reservation under Scheduled
Caste category in her application form. In the
Advertisement, there was a specific sub-category of
Uttarakhand Female in all the categories, therefore, in order
to avail the benefit of a particular sub-category, the
candidate must apply in the said sub-category. Respondent
4
no.3 had applied under the sub-category, Uttarakhand
Female of the category of Scheduled Caste and she was
selected accordingly.
6. Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent
no.3, further contended that petitioner claimed for the
benefit of reservation only under Scheduled Caste category
in her application form and accordingly she was considered
according to her merit in the Scheduled Caste category of
preliminary examination, written examination and result of
final selection was declared according to her claim under
Scheduled Caste category. Now, petitioner claims her
selection under Scheduled Caste Uttarakhand Female
category, which is against the terms and conditions of
Advertisement and order of this Court.
7. In support of his said contentions, Mr. Sandeep
Kothari, Advocate has relied upon the judgment dated
05.05.2010, passed by this High Court in Writ Petition
No.244 of 2010(S/S) titled, "Shalini Dadar vs. Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission and batch", whereby, the Court
observed, "In the present case, the petitioners did not fill up
the column relating to Uttaranchal female in column No.12
and, consequently, the horizontal benefit of Uttaranchal
female was not granted to them. The petitioners themselves
chose not to seek the benefit as an Uttarakhand female.
The respondents, consequently, did not grant them the said
5
benefit. To that extent, there is no error on the part of the
respondents in not granting the benefit of Uttarakhand
female to the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid, this
Court finds that the petitioners are not entitled to be given
horizontal benefit of a female candidate belonging to
Uttarakhand since the petitioners did not fill up the category
for availing the benefit of Uttarakhand female in column
No.12".
8. Where a direction is given to do a certain thing in
a certain way, the thing must be done in that way. It is well
settled that if a particular procedure in filling up the
application form is prescribed, the application form should
be filled up following that procedure.
9. Admittedly, petitioner did not follow the directions
given in the Advertisement and she did not fill up column of
sub-category of Uttarakhand Female, therefore, her claim
for Uttarakhand Female cannot be sustained.
10. In view of the above, the Writ Petition is liable to
be dismissed; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dated: 24.03.2023
JKJ/Pant
