Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1220/2025 on 1 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
S1-
04 WPSS No.1220 of 2025
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Himanshu Pal, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. N.K.Papnoi, Standing Counsel for
the State.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate for the
respondent no.4 and 5.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the
respondent no.6.
Heard.
Admit.
Learned C.S.C. takes notices for the
respondent nos. 1 to 3.
Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate takes
notices for the respondent nos. 4 and 5.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate takes
notices for the respondent no.6.
Respondents may file counter affidavit
within four weeks.
Two weeks, thereafter, rejoinder
affidavit, if any, may be filed.
List this matter for final hearing on
17.09.2025.
Heard on Interim Relief Application, IA
The challenge in this petition is made
to advertisement dated 17.05.2025, issued
by the respondent no.4/R.N.I. Inter College,
Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar ("the
college"), by which application has been
invited for filling of two positions of
teaching.
It is the claim of the petitioner that
the advertisement is against reservation
policy. The persons who had retired were
belonging to OBC category. Therefore, such
vacancy could be filled by OBC candidates
only. He refers to the principles of law, as
laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of R.K. Sabharwal and Others Vs.
State of Punjab and Others, (1995) 2 SCC
745, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court,
inter alia, has observed that, ".....in the
cadre of 100 posts when the posts
earmarked in the roster for the
Scheduled Castes and the Backward
Classes are filled the percentage of
reservation provided for the reserved
categories is achieved. We see no
justification to operate the roster
thereafter."
By means of the interim relief
application, the petitioner seeks stay of the
effect and operation of the impugned
advertisement.
Learned counsel for the respondent
nos. 4, 5 and 6 submits that positions are
not filled up based on the category of
persons due to which the vacancy has
occurred; a running roster of 100 points is
to be maintained and accordingly, the
appointments are to be made.
They further submit that the
judgment given in the case of R.K.
Sabharwal (supra) has been considered by
the Division Bench of this Court in the case
of Jagdish Prasad and Another Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Another, 2013 SCC
OnLine Utt 2716.
In the case of Jagdish Prasad (supra),
the Division Bench of this Court has
referred to the principles of law, as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of R.K. Sabharwal (supra) and
observed that, "in the event, the roster is
followed, then, on completion of
supplying the 100th vacancy, the object
of reservation to its fullest extent will be
achieved."
It is the claim of the respondents that
the advertisement is based on 100 points
roster, as approved and issued by the
Government of Uttarakhand, by virtue of a
Government Order.
Having considered, this Court does
not see any reason to stay the effect and
operation of the impugned order. But the
process, that is undertaken for the filling
up of the vacancy, shall remain subject to
final outcome of the writ petition. The
interim relief application is rejected,
accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani J.)
01.08.2025
RV
