Uttarakhand High Court
Arjun Chand vs State Of Uttarakhand on 14 February, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (SS) No. 107 of 2025
Arjun Chand .......Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and others. .......Respondents.
Present:
Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. P.S. Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Apparently, as per Annexure-5, which is a list relating to
the candidates, who after qualifying the physical test and written
examination the petitioner is placed at S.No. 11 and the status has
been shown as qualified in the select list.
2. On perusal of this document, it clearly reveals that the
petitioner was selected. The petitioner applied under the category
of Uttarakhand Anodolankari; however, at that time the matter
was came up before this court whether the reservation can be
given to the incumbents claiming appointment on the basis of the
Uttarakhand Andolankari. Subsequently, the policy with regard
to the grant of benefit to the Uttarakhand Andolankari were
quashed by this court.
3. Now, new Act i.e. Uttarakhand Act No. 11 of 2024 is
enacted published in official gazette on 18.08.2024 known as
mRrjk[k.M jkT; vkUnksyu ds fpfUgr vkUnksydkfj;ksa ;k muds vkfJrksa dks jktdh; lsok
esa vkj{k.k vf/kfu;e. 2023 and under this Act particularly under
Section 5 the selection/appointment on or after 11.08.2004 under
order of Government in Government Services have been treated
to be valid.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the select
list, which is enclosed as Annexure-5 was never been cancelled
and therefore, by virtue of Section 5 of the Uttarakhand Act No.
11 of 2024 a right is accrued in favour of the pettioner to get
appointment to the post of Sub Inspector.
5. On the other side, learned Additional C.S.C. Mr. P.S. Bisht
bring to the notice of this court a judgment rendered by the
Divisoin Bench dated 26.08.2013 passed in WPPIL No. 67 of 2011
and particularly he refers paragraph-2, which reads as under:
"2. We, accordingly, while admit the writ petition and direct
the matter to be listed for hearing in its turn; restrain the State
from giving any further appointment on the basis of the
policy/rules being the subject matter of the present writ
petition."
6. By referring the aforesaid paragraph learned Additional
C.S.C. Mr. P.S. Bisht submits that by virtue of this order the
Division Bench restrained the State Government for giving any
further appointment, therefore no right is accrued in favour of the
petitioner to get an appointment.
7. So far as the paragraph-2 of the judgment is concerned, on
plain reading of paragraph-2 it reveals that the restrained order
was passed only for giving appointment not for selection.
Furthermore, Rule 5 refers selected/appointed, which reveals
that the candidate who got selected but not appointed are also
protected.
8. No doubt, as per the contention of the petitioner and
particularly as per Annexure-5 prima-facie it appears that the
petitioner was selected since the basis of selection is the criteria,
which is based upon a physical test followed by written
examination, which the petitioner has qualified, therefore once
the petitioner has qualified the physical test and the written
examination, which is evident from Annexure-5 itself, since in the
last column it is mentioned that the petitioner qualified it should
be presumed that the petitioner was selected and if the petitioner
was selected then the question is why the benefit of Section 5 of
Act No. 11 of 2024 may not be given to the petitioner, therefore,
let the State may file an affidavit positively within two weeks to
explain why the petitioner be not given the benefit of Section 5 of
Uttarakhand Act No. 11 of 2024 by treating him to be selected for
the post of Sub Inspector pursuant to the selection carried out in
the year 2014.
9. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner also
argued that in fact the vacancies of recruitment year of 2014-15
were carry forward in the recruitment year of 2021-22 and
therefore, the respondents may be directed to keep one post
reserved for the petitioner.
10. This argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioner is also a debatable question since the vacancies were
carry forwarded prior to the enforcement of Uttarakhand Act No.
11 of 2024. To answer this question the respondents may also file
their response by 05.03.2025 and thereafter by 07.03.2025 the
petitioner shall file rejoinder affidavit.
11. Put up this matter on 11.03.2025 immediately after fresh.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
14.02.2025
PR
