Uttarakhand High Court
August vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 August, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:7039-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 355 of 2020
11 August, 2025
Kalpana Vats and Another --Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
None is present for the petitioners.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent no.2/Public Service Commission
through V.C.
Mr. Yogesh Chandra Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
JUDGMENT
This writ petition was filed by petitioners in
2020 seeking following reliefs:-
i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
the certiorari quashing the order/office
memorandum dated 10.09.2020 (Annexure No.
6 (Colly) to the writ petition).
ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
the mandamus directing the respondent no. 2
to permit the petitioners provisionally in the
interview ignoring the certificate as per
prescribed proforma of appendix-02 (Annexure
No. 5 to the writ petition) taking into account
certificate issued by the respondent no. 3
(Annexure No. 4 (Colly) to the writ petition).
iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of
the mandamus directing the respondent no. 3
to issue the provisional certificate to the
petitioners as per prescribed proforma of
appendix-02 of the notification dated
04.08.2017 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ
petition) prior to scheduled interview.
2025:UHC:7039-DB
iv. Issue any other or further writ, order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
v. To award the cost of the petition in favor of the
petitioners."
2. Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated
05.11.2020 directed Public Service Commission to
permit the petitioners to appear in the interview.
3. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel appearing
for the Public Service Commission/respondent no.2
submits that after selection, result of both petitioners
was declared on 03.12.2020. He submits that petitioner
no.1 scored 56 marks only whereas marks scored by
last candidate belonging to Uttarakhand Female
(General Category) was 65, therefore, petitioner no.1
was not recommended for appointment.
4. He further submits that since petitioner no.2
belongs to Uttarakhand Women (Scheduled Caste
Category) and the marks scored by last candidate
belonging to said category was 45 and petitioner no.2
also scored 45 marks, therefore, her name was
recommended for appointment to the competent
authority. Thus, Mr. Miglani, learned counsel for
respondent no.2 submits that the reliefs claimed by
petitioners do not survive after declaration of their
result.
5. We find substance in the submission that in
view of the developments which took place during
pendency of the writ petition, reliefs as claimed in the
2025:UHC:7039-DB
writ petition do not survive. Accordingly, the writ
petition is dismissed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
11.08.2025
SS
SUKHBANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
2.5.4.20=71978f9c61bfde0ba69967c787b1764ea7bc7dd129a
8a6380d49b1885e628615, postalCode=263001,
SINGH
st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=2D8B71B8D8E345F6B7F95B1DD4FB4BEBD2B7
D72C42261361AED33172F152148D, cn=SUKHBANT SINGH
Date: 2025.08.13 19:25:44 +05'30'
