[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/565/2025 on 30 December, 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
4 WPSB No. 565 of 2025
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
Ms. Abhilasha Tomar, Advocate,
holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the
respondents.
Heard.
Admit.
Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate takes
notice on behalf of the respondents.
Respondents may file counter
affidavit within four weeks. Two weeks
thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may
be filed.
List on 18.02.2026.
Heard on Stay Application No. 1 of
The petitioner had applied for the
position of Counselor in the Indian
Institute of Technology, Roorkee for which
the minimum qualification was Master of
Philosophy in Clinical Psychology with two
years experience. The petitioner has
undergone the recruitment process for a
distance, but subsequently, it is the case of
the petitioner that she has been denied for
the interview on the ground that she does
not possess the requisite qualification. It is
the case of the petitioner that she has done
MA in applied Psychology with Clinical
Psychology Specialization which is
equivalent to the MA Clinical Psychology.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner has wrongly
been denied interview. She would refer to
the principles of law, as laid down in the
case of Laxmikant Sharma Vs. State of
Madhya Pradesh and others, 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 2712 to argue that, in fact, the
qualification has to be seen in the context
purposively.
Learned counsel for the respondents
submits that the principles of law, as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the
case of Laxmikant Sharma (supra) are not
applicable in the instant case because that
was case of terminating the services of the
person on the ground that he did not
possess the requisite qualifications. He
submits that in the instant case, the
principles of law, as laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Zahoor Ahmad Rather and others Vs.
Sheikh Imtiyaz Ahmad and others (2019) 2
SCC 404 as well as three judges Bench
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Unnikrishnan CV and others
Vs. Union of India and others, (2023) 18
SCC 546 would come into play. There has
been no equivalence given in the Rules or
in the advertisement. The qualification
which given in the advertisement, the
candidate must possess that qualification
in order to get through the recruitment
process.
Having heard, this Court directs that
the petitioner shall be permitted to
participate in the interview. However, the
result shall not be declared until further
orders of the Court.
The matter shall be finally heard and
decided on 18.02.2026. No extension shall
be considered for filing pleadings. Even on
that date, no adjournment shall be
considered from either of the parties.
Stay application stands disposed of
accordingly
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J)
30.12.2025
Jitendra
