Uttarakhand High Court
Sarita Gupta vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 14 August, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA
Writ Petition (S/B) No.367 of 2024
Sarita Gupta -- Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. B. P. Nautiyal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Manokam
Nautiyal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.C. Bisht, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.
Ms. Mamta Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. S. S.
Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent nos.3 & 4/Nigam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Judgment reserved on 01.08.2025
Judgment delivered on 14.08.2025
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Alok Mahra, J.)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2024
passed by respondent no.3, whereby petitioner has been
dismissed from service. Petitioner has further prayed that
she may be reinstated in service and may be permitted to
discharge her duties, which she was discharging before
issuance of the aforesaid Office Memorandum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-
Nigam issued an advertisement on 02.01.2007, whereby
39 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil) were advertised;
that, out of these 39 posts, 7 posts were reserved for
OBC, 11 posts were reserved for SC, 1 post was reserved
for ST category and 20 posts were for General Category
candidates; that, petitioner belongs to General Category
and fulfilled all the eligibility conditions as per the
advertisement for the said post; that, written test was
held and merit list was prepared; that, petitioner, by
virtue of her merit, was selected against the post for
General Category. 30% horizontal reservation was
granted to women candidates, thus, 6 posts were
available under horizontal reservation to women
candidates belonging to General Category, after the
written examination and interview, only 5 General
Category (Women) were declared successful including the
petitioner and one seat of General Category (Women)
remained unfilled. Pursuant to the selection, petitioner
was issued appointment letter dated 05.10.2007 and
after completion of probation period, the services of the
petitioner were confirmed vide order dated 07.06.2011;
that, thereafter, petitioner discharged her duty to the
satisfaction of the higher authorities and neither any
complaint nor any charge sheet was issued to the
petitioner; that, petitioner was subsequently, promoted to
the post of Executive Engineer vide order dated
21.07.2018; that, after 14 years of continues satisfactory
service in the department, petitioner was issued show-
cause notice dated 05.03.2021 to the effect that since
she was selected under the General Category (Women),
whereas such horizontal reservation for women was only
to be granted to those candidates, who were domicile of
State of Uttarakhand only, as such reservation was
wrongly given to her. Petitioner filed her reply to the
above show-cause notice, stating that, there was no
condition in the advertisement that horizontal reservation
to women would be granted to only those candidates,
who are domicile of State of Uttarakhand, while seeking
appointment on the said post, she has not
misrepresented or played any fraud on the respondents.
Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the Department,
wherein, it has come that there was no condition in the
advertisement regarding grant of horizontal reservation
to women having domicile certificate of Uttaranchal
(Uttarakhand), further petitioner has neither
misrepresented nor played any fraud while seeking
appointment. Beside this, the Inquiry Committee has
submitted that petitioner has rendered 17 years of
service in the Department. The Inquiry Officer, who was
the Managing Director of the Corporation, opined that no
punishment can be given to the petitioner. The said
inquiry report was forwarded to the State Government;
that, the State Government vide its letter dated
17.05.2023 directed the respondent no.3-Managing
Director to take further action against the petitioner on
the ground that she was wrongly granted benefit of
reservation as she was not domicile of Uttaranchal
(Uttarakhand); that, in pursuance of the above letter,
again show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on
08.06.2023, wherein petitioner was asked to show-cause
as to why her appointment be not cancelled, as she was
not entitled for reservation of General Category
(Women); that, thereafter, petitioner replied to the said
show-cause notice on 30.06.2023. In her reply, the
petitioner reiterated her earlier stand. Beside this, she
has submitted that sufficient number of posts reserved
for General Category (Women) remained unfilled, as
candidates belonging to the category were not available
or failed to secure the minimum cut-off marks, thus, she
has submitted that the condition of having permanent
resident certificate of State of Uttarakhand was waived by
the respondents by offering appointment to the petitioner
against the post reserved to general women; that,
without taking into consideration the grounds mentioned
by the petitioner in her reply to the show-cause notice,
the impugned dismissal order has been passed, whereby
the services of the petitioner have been dismissed on the
post of Executive Engineer vide order dated 24.06.2024.
3. We have heard Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, learned Senior
Counsel and Mr. S.S Chauhan, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 and 3.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, prima facie,
it is apparent that the complainant appears to have been
set-up by co-workers.
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4
would submit that posts in the reserved categories were
reserved for candidates only from Uttaranchal (now
Uttarakhand) and the petitioner is from outside
Uttaranchal.
6. The fact remains that it is not the case of the
respondents that sufficient number of candidates of
Uttaranchal (Uttarakhand) from the General Category
(Women) was available way back in 2007 and, despite
the availability of candidates hailing from General
Category (Women) from Uttaranchal, appointments have
been made. The order of appointment clearly notes their
home districts in Column-5 and appointments have been
made despite the respondents being well-aware of the
fact that the petitioner came from a place outside the
Uttaranchal. At this stage, it can only be, prima facie,
inferred that the State, which was duly created in 2000
and was facing a shortage of personnel, that too,
technical personnel, has knowingly acted and issued
appointment orders, which, in our prima facie opinion,
would amount to waiver of the condition. It is not the
case of the respondent-State that the petitioner has
placed fabricated documents regarding her domicile. The
authenticity of the domicile certificate not being in
question and the domicile certificate produced by the
petitioner having been issued by the State of U.P., the
action at this point of time appears to be a colourable
exercise. Reliance on the condition that the candidates
should hail from the State of Uttaranchal having been
consciously ignored, the question that stands before this
Court is whether the State can now turn around and try
to take the advantage of its own wrong. Assuming that
the appointment was made contrary to the conditions
imposed by itself, though admitted that there was no
such condition in the advertisement, the undisputed fact
is that, after the appointment, the authorities have
occasion to scrutinize the reservation granted to the
petitioner as a general (women) candidate, while giving
her appointment even at the time of joining her service,
at the time of making her permanent employee, and also
at the time of issuing promotion order, promoting the
petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer in the year
2018, the respondents did not take any action against the
petitioner and after serving for nearly two decades, the
impugned order has been passed. The present complaint
perhaps is the result of a rat race amongst the peers. The
State having consciously acted and having made the
condition, the question is whether the State is estopped
from taking advantage of its own wrong. Hence, the
order impugned is liable to be set aside.
7. As per the submissions of learned counsel for
respondent no.3 and 4, the petitioner could not have
been granted the benefit of reservation as such her initial
appointment is bad in the eyes of law.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the considered opinion that while seeking
appointment, the petitioner has neither misrepresented
before the respondents authorities nor placed
fabricated/false domicile certificate before the concerned
authorities and by its action the respondents have waived
the conditions given in the advertisement relating to
grant of benefit of reservation to only those candidates,
who are domicile of State of Uttaranchal, therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the case and also for the fact
that the petitioner has rendered about two decades of
satisfactory service in the department and undoubtedly
her termination would not only impinge upon the
economic security of the petitioner and her dependents,
but also adversely affect her career; that, this would be
highly unjust and grossly unfair to the petitioner, who is
innocent appointee, of an error made by the selection
committee two decades ago. Thus, the impugned order of
dismissal dated 24.06.2024 cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law and is hereby set aside. The writ petition
stands allowed.
9. The respondent authorities are directed to
reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Executive
Engineer, from which she has been dismissed, with all
consequential benefits. There shall no order as to costs.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 14.08.2025
BS
BALWANT Digitally signed by BALWANT SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4b
SINGH
a7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755D
C00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH
Date: 2025.08.14 15:42:17 +05'30'
