Uttarakhand High Court
St At E Of Ut T Arakhand And Ot Her S ... vs Sm T . Karuna on 23 April, 2025
2025:UHC:2947-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
H ON 'BLE JUSTI CE SRI M AN OJ KUM AR TI W ARI AN D
H ON 'BLE JUSTI CE SRI ASH I SH N AI TH AN I
D e la y Con don a t ion Applica t ion ( CLM A/ 1 4 2 0 8 / 2 0 1 7 )
In
Special Appeal No. 910 of 2017
St at e of Ut t arakhand and ot her s -Appellant s
Versus
Sm t . Karuna - - Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence: -
Mr. Puran Singh Bisht , Addit ional CSC for t he St at e/ appellant s
Mr. Raj endra Singh Azad, Advocat e for t he respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cour t m a de t he follow ing:
JUDGMENT:
( pe r H on 'ble Just ice Sr i M a noj Kum a r Tiw a r i)
1. There is delay of 153 days in filing t his int ra- Court
appeal. Reasons furnished in t he delay Condonat ion
applicat ion are sufficient t o condone t he delay in filing
t he appeal. Accordingly, Delay Condonat ion Applicat ion
( CLMA/ 14208/ 2017) is allowed and t he delay in filing
t he Appeal is condoned.
2. This int ra Court appeal is filed challenging
j udgm ent and order dat ed 03.05.2017, passed by
learned Single Judge in Writ Pet it ion ( S/ S) No. 1480 of
2016. The im pugned j udgm ent is reproduced below for
ready reference:
" Pet it ioner part icipat ed in t he select ion process for
t he post of Assist ant Teacher as per t he advert isem ent
dat ed 17.02.2016. The case of t he pet it ioner was rej ect ed
m erely on t he ground t hat she has not quot ed t he m arked
obt ained by her in graduat ion in t he prescribed colum ns.
The at t ent ion of t his Court has been drawn t owards
Annexure No.8. I t is evident from Annexure No.8 t hat t he
pet it ioner has filled up t he form correct ly.
She has quot ed 1350 m arks as t ot al m arks and 697
m arks as secured m arks.
Pet it ioner 's case has been rej ect ed by t he
2025:UHC:2947-DB
respondent s in a very arbit rary and unreasonable m anner.
She is deprived of seeking public em ploym ent . She
obt ained 63.23 qualit y m arks. Persons who have secured
lesser qualit y m arks t han t he pet it ioner have been
considered for appoint m ent t o t he post of Assist ant
Teacher.
Accordingly, t he writ pet it ion is disposed of wit h t he
direct ion t o t he respondent s t o consider t he case of t he
pet it ioner t o t he post of Assist ant Teacher on t he basis of
her qualit y m arks i.e. 63.23 qualit y m arks wit hin a period
of t en weeks from t oday.
Pending applicat ion, if any, also st ands disposed of."
3. Mr. Puran Singh Bisht , learned St at e counsel for
t he appellant s subm it s t hat writ pet it ioner had given
incorrect inform at ion in her applicat ion, subm it t ed
pursuant to advert isem ent dat ed 17.02.2016. He
subm it s t hat m axim um m arks for B.A. exam inat ion,
passed by writ pet it ioner were 1350 and pet it ioner had
scored 697 m arks in graduat ion; however, in her
applicat ion form she m ent ioned t he m axim um m arks
for graduat ion as 1300.
4. Learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat in t he
advert isem ent , whereby applicat ions were invit ed for
appoint m ent t o t he post of Assist ant Teacher ( Prim ary) ,
t here was a specific st ipulat ion m ade in Clause 7- i( j ha)
t hat candidat e shall be responsible for incorrect /
erroneous/ vague inform at ion given in t he applicat ion
and such applicat ion or incom plet e applicat ion shall be
rej ect ed. Thus, learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat by
invoking Clause 7- i( j ha) of advert isem ent , applicat ion
of t he writ pet it ioner was right ly rej ect ed as she had
subm it t ed incorrect inform at ion and int erference m ade
by learned Single Judge was, t herefore, not warrant ed.
5. We find subst ance in t he said subm ission. Since
t here is a clear st ipulat ion m ade in t he advert isem ent
2025:UHC:2947-DB
t hat applicat ion form shall be liable t o be cancelled for
supplying any incorrect inform at ion, and t he condit ion
m ent ioned in Clause 7- i( j ha) of t he advert isem ent is
applicable across t he board t o all candidat es and,
learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat as m any as 757
applicat ions were rej ect ed only on t his ground t hat
inform at ion subm it t ed by candidat e was not correct ,
t herefore, int erference m ade by learned Single Judge
was not warrant ed in t he fact s and circum st ances of
t he case. The sanct it y of t he select ion process cannot
be perm it t ed t o be pollut ed by t he candidat e by
furnishing incorrect inform at ion in t heir applicat ion.
6. We, accordingly, allow t he Appeal, set aside t he
im pugned j udgm ent , rendered by learned Single Judge.
_______________________________
M AN OJ KUM AR TI W ARI , J.
__________________________
ASH I SH N AI TH AN I , J.
Dt : 23 rd April, 2025
Mahinder
