Monika Chanyal vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 19 December, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                         2025:UHC:11296
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
          Writ Petition No. 538 of 2025 (SS)
Monika Chanyal                                      --Petitioner
                                Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others                     -Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates:   Mr. Rahul Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner
             Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General for the State.
             Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate assisted by Mr. Gaurav Nagpal,
             Advocate for the respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                            JUDGMENT

1. Petitioner possesses Bachelor's Degree in Medical Radio Diagnosis and Imaging Technology from H.N.B. Uttarakhand Medical Education University, Dehradun. According to him, he took admission in said course, which was of three years duration in 2019; the course was to complete in 2022; however, due to lockdown imposed because of COVID-19 Pandemic, course was concluded with some delay and result of the course was declared in June, 2023 and mark sheet was ultimately issued on 20.10.2023. The degree issued by concerned University is on record as Annexure -1 to the writ petition, which is dated 05.06.2024.

2. It is the case of petitioner that she applied for registration with Uttarakhand Para Medical Council on 22.12.2023; however, permanent registration was granted to her on 20.10.2024.

3. An advertisement was issued by Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board, inviting applications for appointment to the post of X-Ray Technician. The said advertisement was issued on 25.11.2023; last date of submission of application mentioned was 26.12.2023. Petitioner responded to said advertisement, she was permitted to participate in the selection and was declared

2025:UHC:11296 successful, but at the time of document verification, her candidature was rejected on the ground that permanent registration has been issued by Uttarakhand Para Medical Council to her after the last date of submission of application. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner had successfully completed degree course in Medical Radio Diagnosis and Imaging Technology in the month of June, 2023 and the mark sheet was also issued in her favour on 20.10.2023, therefore, the delay, if any, on part of Para Medical Council in issuing registration certificate, cannot be attributed to the petitioner and petitioner cannot be penalized for such delay.

5. It is further submitted that petitioner had applied for registration to the concerned Council well within time i.e. before the last date of submission of application, therefore, in view of law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Narender Singh Vs. State of Haryana, reported as (2022) 3 SCC 286 and in Laxmi Saroj and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported as (2022) 17 SCC 477, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

6. In Laxmi Saroj (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"11. Thus, because of the late issuance of the registration by the U.P. Council, the appellants could not produce the U.P. Council registration either on the last date of the application and/or at the time of verification of documents and therefore, they were held ineligible.

12. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that as such, there was no fault on the part of the appellants in not producing the U.P. Council registration either at the time of submitting the application forms or even at the time of verification of the documents. As such, all the appellants except one had applied for U.P. Council registration before the date of advertisement i.e. 15-12-2021. Therefore, for no fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have been made to suffer.

2025:UHC:11296

13. The issue involved is directly covered by the decision of this Court in Narender Singh v. State of Haryana [Narender Singh v. State of Haryana, (2022) 3 SCC 286 : (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 537] . In the said decision, it is observed and held by this Court that once it was found that there was no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant and/or there was no fault of the appellant/applicant in not producing the NOC at the relevant time, he cannot be punished for the same.

14. When the aforesaid decision was pressed into service before the High Court on behalf of the appellants, the High Court has not followed the same by observing that the directions issued by this Court in Narender Singh [Narender Singh v. State of Haryana, (2022) 3 SCC 286 : (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 537] , were in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. The aforesaid is a misreading and/or misinterpreting of the judgment of this Court. This Court has specifically laid down the law that if it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him. However, as in that case, another candidate/employee was already appointed, this Court had protected his service also while exercising the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India was for protecting the service of another employee, Respondent 4 in that case. The High Court has as such, misread the judgment of this Court."

7. Learned counsel for petitioner has also drawn attention of this Court to a Notification dated 28.03.2025, issued by Secretary, Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board. By said notification, persons desirous of applying for the post of Medical Officer, pursuant to some other advertisement, were informed that candidates who have applied for registration with Uttarakhand Medical Council may also submit application along with the receipt of making application for registration to the Uttarakhand Medical Council, and the insistence on permanent registration with Para Medical Council was dispensed with.

8. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon a judgment dated 06.11.2025, rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2331 of 2024 (SS) and other connected petitions. He submits that since identical issue has been dealt with in those writ petitions, therefore, petitioner's case also deserves to be allowed.

2025:UHC:11296

9. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly concedes that the issues involved are identical, therefore, they have no objection if writ petition is decided in terms of the judgment rendered in WPSS No. 2331 of 2024

10. In view of consensus between the parties and also in view of judgment rendered in WPSS No. 2331 of 2024, the writ petition is decided in terms of the said judgment. The Selecting Body shall recommend the name of petitioner to the State Government; however, before issuing appointment letter, the appointing authority shall ensure that petitioner meets other conditions of eligibility for appointment as X-Ray Technician.

_______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

Dt: 19.12.2025 Mahinder

MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.12.19 18:54:31 +05'30'