Uttarakhand High Court
Abhilasha Saxena And Others ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 25 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Reserved on 07.08.2025
Delivered on 25.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 483 of 2024 (S/S)
Abhilasha Saxena and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Medical Service
Selection Board.
Writ Petition No. 425 of 2024 (S/S)
Deepak Bhandari and others ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Medical Service
Selection Board.
Writ Petition No. 454 of 2024 (S/S)
Heera Devi and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Medical Service
Selection Board.
2
Writ Petition No. 504 of 2024 (S/S)
Geeta Takuli and another ......Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Medical Service
Selection Board.
Writ Petition No. 505 of 2024 (S/S)
Laxmi Rana ......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ....Respondents
Present:
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Medical Service
Selection Board.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Since common questions of law and fact are involved in
these writ petitions, they are heard together and being decided by this
common judgment. However, the facts of WP (S/S) No. 483 of 2024 are
being referred to, for the sake of convenience.
2. In all these petitions, the petitioners claim that they are
eligible for appointment to the post of Nursing Officer. They seek
directions of the Court that pursuant to the advertisement dated
11.03.2024, issued by the respondent no. 4/Uttarakhand Medical
Service Selection Board ("the Board"), the cut off date for determining the
age of the petitioners should be 01.07.2020 and not 01.07.20023.
3. The facts necessary to understand the controversy should
be briefly stated in a chronological manner as follows:-
(i) On 12.12.2020, the Uttarakhand Board of
Technical Education, Dehradun ("UBTE")
advertised public advertisement for recruitment
of 1238 vacant posts of Staff Nurse in the
Department of Medical Health, Uttarakhand.
The cut off date for age was 01.01.2020.
(ii) All the petitioners did apply to it. But, this
advertisement was cancelled.
(iii) On 02.02.2021, the UBTE again issued a fresh
advertisement for recruitment of 1238 posts of
Staff Nurse in the Department of Medical
Health, Dehradun. This advertisement
categorically mentioned that the candidates,
who had applied pursuant to the advertisement
dated 12.12.2021 and subject to their eligibility
are not required to re-apply.
(iv) As per the condition of the advertisement, the
selection was to be made on the basis of a
written examination and the merit list was to be
prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by
the candidates in the written examination.
(v) On 09.02.2021, UBTE issued a corrigendum to
the earlier advertisement dated 02.02.2021 and
the number of vacancies were increased to
2621. It was pursuant to the fresh requisition
sent by the Director, Medical Education in
respect of 1383 vacancies of Staff Nurse in the
various Government Medical Colleges of the
State.
(vi) On 23.03.2021, the nomenclature of the post in
the nursing cadre was changed, and for the
Staff Nurse, it was re-designated as Nursing
Officer.
(vii) On 17.04.2021, UBTE issued a notification by
which it was notified that the cut off date for
determining the age would be 01.07.2020
instead of 01.01.2020 and thus those
candidates, who were eligible to apply then,
could apply.
(viii) The dates of written examination were notified
and then postponed and it was never
communicated. A decision was taken by the
State Government that the direct recruitment to
the post of Nursing Officer shall be conducted
by the Board, instead of UBTE.
(ix) On 14.10.2022, the State of Uttarakhand
issued a notification that in case any
advertisement is issued by the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission
("UKSSSC")and the recruitment could not be
concluded and the posts are further advertised
by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission,
in such matters, the age of the candidates shall
be counted from the date as was mentioned in
the notification issued by the UKSSSC.
(x) On 25.08,2022, the service rules of the Nursing
Officers were amended and a proviso was added
to Rule 15 that as a one-time measure, the
selection on the post of Nursing Officer for the
selection year 2022-23 will be made on the
basis of the marks obtained by the candidates
in their courses.
(x) The recruitment process pursuant to the
advertisement dated 12.12.2020 and
02.02.2021 was never taken to a logical end.
They were aborted midway.
(xi) On 03.01.2023, the Board issued an
advertisement inviting applications for holding
Nursing Officers Examination - 2023 against
1564 posts of Nursing Officer in the
Department of Medical Health and Family
Welfare, Uttarakhand and the cut off date for
its examination was 01.07.2022. This cut off
date was challenged by many candidates in
WPSS No. 134 of 2023, Deepak Bhandari and
others v. State of Uttarakhand and others, and
connected matters ("the first petition").
(xii) This Court on 30.10.2023 allowed the first
petition and held that "in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case, by relaxing
condition no. 7 of the impugned
advertisement dated 03.01.2023 qua the
writ petitioners, a writ of mandamus is
issued to the respondent-State as well as
respondent no. 4-Selecting Board directing
them to treat the petitioners within the
maximum age limit in the selection process
held vide advertisement dated 03.01.2023
and to hold them eligible to apply for the
said posts insofar as their upper age is
concerned."
(xiii) It was so observed by the Court noticing that
the delay caused by the respondent in
completion of the selection process has became
fatal to the interest of the petitioners, who have
become overage by aborting the earlier selection
process.
(xiv) On 27.09.2023, the State Government again
made change in the service rules for
recruitment of Nursing Officers and again
provided that as a one-time measure, selection
to the post of Nursing Officer for the selection
year 2022-23 will be made on the basis of
marks obtained by the candidates in their
Degree/Diploma courses.
(xv) On 11.03.2024, the Board issued an
advertisement for selection on the post of 1455
vacancies of Nursing Officer in the Government
Medical Colleges of the State, etc. and the cut
off date for age determination was 01.07.2023.
(xvi) The petitioners are aggrieved by this cut off
date.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
5. According to the petitioners, they had applied pursuant to
the advertisement dated 12.12.2020 issued by UBTE; they were eligible
for appointment when second time advertisement was issued by UBTE
on 02.02.2021 followed by the corrigendum dated 09.02.2021; at that
time, the total vacancies were 2621; but, when the recruiting body was
changed and the Board took up the process for recruitment, initially by
virtue of advertisement dated advertisement dated 03.01.2023, only 1564
posts were advertised and all the posts, which were advertised in the past
were not re-advertised; the selection was not on the basis of written
examination; it was on the basis of passing years and the marks obtained
by the candidates in the Degree/Course; therefore, the rights of the
petitioners were defeated; the advertisement, which has been issued on
11.03.2024 is with regard to such posts of Nursing Officer in the
Department of Medical Education, which were earlier clubbed in the
notification dated 12.12.2020, 02.02.2021 and the corrigendum dated
09.02.2021 issued by UBTE, when the petitioners were eligible for
competing in terms of age also.
6. It is further the case of the petitioners that when by virtue
of advertisement dated 03.01.2023, the Board invited applications for
appointment against 1564 vacancies, in the first petition, the Court held
them eligible in terms of age. It is the case of the petitioners that the
same treatment is to be given to the petitioners now in respect of the
advertisement dated 11.03.2024 of the Board.
7. The Director, Medical Education has filed counter affidavit.
The factual narrations have been stated in the counter affidavit and it is
stated that the petition is devoid of merit.
8. The Board has also filed its counter affidavit and according
to it, the advertisement has been issued based on the requisition sent by
the employer and Clause 7 of the advertisement provides for maximum
age limit of 42 years as on 01.07.2023, which is as per relevant service
rules.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
initially when on 12.12.2020 advertisement was issued for appointment
of Nursing Officer by the UBTE, they were qualified; initially, there were
1238 posts pertaining to the Medical Health Department; subsequently,
the posts of Nursing Officer in Medical Education Department were also
added; the earlier advertisement dated 12.12.2020 was cancelled; the
second advertisement was issued on 02.02.2021; by then, the petitioners
had no grievance because they were deemed to have applied earlier; by
the corrigendum dated 09.02.2021 of UBTE, 1383 posts were added,
which made total vacancies as 2621, which were never recruited by the
UBTE. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the Board took up the
examination; meanwhile, the rules were relaxed and competitive
examination was ruled out and selection was proposed to be made on the
basis of passing year and the marks obtained in the course/degree; the
petitioners' chances for appointment were also ruled out by this change
in the rules.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that on
03.01.2023, the Board advertised vacancies, but they were not all the
vacancies, which were earlier advertised by the UBTE by its notification
dated 0202.2021 and corrigendum dated 09.02.2021 (2621 in all); but
the Board advertised only 1564 vacancies pertaining to Medical Health
Department leaving many vacancies unadvertised to the detriment of the
petitioners. But, in the first petition, it is argued that the candidates were
held eligible in terms of age. It is argued that now by the advertisement
dated 11.03.2024, the vacancies, which were advertised by UBTE by its
advertisement dated 02.02.2021 and 09.02.2021 have also been
advertised, but the cut off date is 01.07.2023, which is bad; the
petitioners have become overage due to inaction on the part of
respondent Board or UTBE for conducting recruitment on time;
therefore, like the direction issued in the first petition, in this writ
petition also, the petitioners should be held to be eligible in terms of age
for participating in the recruitment process.
11. Learned State Counsel submits that by advertisement dated
11.03.2024, age has been fixed as given under the rules and the Court
cannot make any interference in it; Court cannot give any relaxation in
age; it is totally a policy matter. In support of it, the learned State
Counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law as laid down in the
cases of Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh and others v. Dr. H. Nabachandra
Singh and others, (2020) 20 SCC 312, Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of
Uttarakhand and others, Special Appeal No. 99 of 2007 and Dr. Ami Lal
Bhatt v. State of Rajasthan and others, (1997) 6 SCC 614.
12. In the case of Dr. Thingujam Achouba Singh (supra), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court may not relax the
age for any candidate. It is of only open for the employer. In para 16 of
the judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
"16. So far as relaxation of upper age-limit, as sought by the
petitioners in one of the writ petitions is concerned, the High Court has
directed the competent authority and Executive Council of the Society to
consider for providing such relaxation clause. We fail to understand as
to how such direction can be given by the High Court for providing a
relaxation which is not notified in the advertisement. While it is open for
the employer to notify such criteria for relaxation when sufficient
candidates are not available, at the same time nobody can claim such
relaxation as a matter of right. The eligibility criteria will be within the
domain of the employer and no candidate can seed as a matter of right,
to provide relaxation clause"
13. In the case of Rakesh Kumar Singh (supra), the Division
Bench of this Court has held that there is no statutory provision for age
relaxation. In para 10 of judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench has held
as under:-
"10. Reverting to the case in hand, admittedly, there is no
statutory provision providing for age relaxation. Merely because age
relaxation was granted in the past, no right is created in favour of the
petitioner to claim age relaxation. As the petitioner has no legally
enforceable right to claim age relaxation, no writ of mandamus can be
issued to the respondents to grant age relaxation to the petitioner in
view of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court."
14. In the case of Dr. Ami Lal Bhatt, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while dealing with the subject relating to relaxation in age, observed in
para 11 as under:-
"11. In our view this kind of an interpretation cannot
be given to a rule for relaxation of age. The power of relaxation is
required to be exercised in public interest in a given case; as for
example, if other suitable candidates are not available for the
post, and the only candidate who is suitable has crossed the
maximum age-limit; or to mitigate hardship in a given case.
Such a relaxation in special circumstances of a given case is to
be exercised by the administration after referring that case to the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission. There cannot be any
wholesale relaxation because the advertisement is delayed or
because the vacancy occurred earlier especially when there is no
allegation of any mala fides in connection with any delay in
issuing an advertisement. This kind of power of wholesale
relaxation would make for total uncertainty in determining the
maximum age of a candidate. It might be unfair to a large
number of candidates who might be similarly situated, but who
may not apply, thinking that they are age-barred. We fail to see
how the power of relaxation can be exercised in the manner
contended."
15. Learned counsel for the Board submits that in the
advertisement dated 11.03.2024, the cut off date has been fixed in
accordance with the rules; the Board is a recruitment agency; it has no
role except to advertise the vacancy as per the requisition.
16. Undoubtedly, the Court cannot give relaxation in age. It is a
policy matter to be decided by the employer, firstly, as to what should the
age for recruitment to a particular post and, secondly, whether any
relaxation is to be given and to which category of the candidates.
17. In the instant matter, this Court is not going to relax the
age per se. What is being argued is that the recruitment process, which
was initiated on 12.12.2020 has never been concluded in full, because it
was cancelled by the subsequent advertisement dated 02.02.2021 of
UBTE for recruitment on 1238 posts of Nursing Officer and by a
corrigendum dated 09.02.2021, 1383 more posts were added and total
vacancies against which the advertisement was issued were 2621. This
recruitment has never taken to its logical end. It was aborted.
18. It is not in dispute that the petitioners had applied
pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.12.2020 and 02.02.2021 issued
by the UBTE. It is also admitted position that as per the service rules, the
Nursing Officers are to be appointed on the basis of written examination.
After aborting the process of recruitment, the service rules were changed
and the selection, as the one time measure, was done on the basis of
passing year and the marks obtained by a candidate in the
diploma/degree course. The petitioners were left with no choice.
19. In the year 2021, they were eligible. They applied. They were
there to compete, but the competition never held and rules of game were
changed; process of recruitment aborted.
20. Thereafter, the recruiting agency was changed and on
03.01.2023, the Board advertised 1564 vacancies of the Nursing Officer
in the Medical Health Department. It may be noted that earlier the
vacancies in the Medial Health Department and Medical Education
Department, both were advertised by UBTE by its advertisement dated
02.02.2021 and 09.02.2021. They were 2621 in all, which included 1238
posts in Medical Health Department and 1383 in Medical Education
Department.
21. It is clear that the total vacancies, which were advertised in
the year 2021 were not re-advertised on 03.01.2023 and in the
advertisement dated 03.01.2023 issued by the Board, the cut off date for
age determination was 01.07.2023 and fact remains that challenge to it
was accepted in the first writ petition, when the Court held that due to
inaction of the recruiting body, the candidate should not suffer. The
petitioners in the first petition were held eligible to compete pursuant to
the notification dated 03.01.2023, in case they were otherwise eligible.
On the ground of age, they were not held to be disqualified.
22. Similar is the situation now. At the copy of repetition, it is
reiterated that initially 2621 posts were advertised in the year 2021, but
they were never recruited. The recruitment process was aborted. The rule
of game was changed. Instead of a competitive examination, selection
was done based on the passing year and the marks obtained in the
Diploma/Degree course. In the year 2023, the Board did not advertise all
the vacancies, which were earlier advertised in the year 2021. Only 1564
vacancies were advertised. Now, on 11.03.2024, 1564 vacancies of
Nursing Officer have been advertised. The Court reiterates that relaxation
of age per se in rules cannot be granted by the Court. The vacancies in
advertisement dated 11.03.2024 includes 1383 vacancies of Nursing
Officer of Medical Education Department, which were included in the
advertisement dated 02.02.2021 of UBTE by its corrigendum dated
09.02.2021.
23. If one recruiting agency has issued advertisement and the
process is not completed and the recruiting agency is changed and the
subsequent agency further advertised the posts, in such a situation to
overcome the situation of overage, the Government of Uttarakhand has
issued a notification dated 14.10.2022, which is Annexure 8 to the writ
petition and it categorically records that in case earlier vacancies were
advertised by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection
Commission, but the process is not completed and subsequently the
vacancies were advertised by the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission, relaxation shall be granted to the candidates, who had
earlier responded to the advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission.
24. Similar is the case here. The earlier advertisement dated
02.02.2021 with regard to 1383 posts of Nursing Officer in the Medical
Education Department were never filled up. They were not advertised on
03.01.2023 by the Board. They have been advertised now on 11.03.2024.
The number of vacancies admittedly is 1455. The petitioners were
eligible in the year 2021 in terms of age. More importantly, the service
rules were twice changed since then. Once it was changed on 05.08.2022
when it was held that selection shall be made on the passing year and
marks obtained in Diploma/Degree course and again on 27.09.2003, the
rules were changed as one time measure for recruitment in the similar
manner. The petitioners were deprived of their prospects in two manners,
as follows:-
(i) In the year 2021, all the vacancies were not filled.
Whatever vacancies were filled up pursuant to
advertisement dated 03.01.2023, that were on the
basis of change of rules. The petitioners had no
competition then.
(ii) All the posts were not advertised.
25. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in terms of age, the
petitioners need protection of the Court. Admittedly, all the petitioners
did apply pursuant to advertisement dated 12.12.2020, which
continued with the advertisement dated 02.02.2021 and the
corrigendum dated 09.02.2021 of UBTE. Then, the cut off date for age
determination was 01.07.2020. All the vacancies advertised then have
never been filled up till date. For this, the petitioners cannot be faulted.
The rules were changed in between. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, even pursuant to the
advertisement dated 11.03.2024, the cut off date for determination of
age should be 01.07.2020. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be
allowed.
26. All the writ petitions are allowed. Pursuant to the
advertisement dated 11.03.2024 of the Board, the cut off date for
determining the age of the petitioners shall be 01.07.2020. By the
interim orders of this Court, all the petitioners were permitted to
participate in the recruitment process, but it was directed to the Board
that their result shall not be declared. Now, in view of this judgment, the
Board shall declare the result of the petitioners.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
25.08.2025
Avneet/
