Uttarakhand High Court
Priyanka Pathak vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 18 February, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (SS) No. 160 of 2025
Priyanka Pathak ...Petitioner
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
Writ Petition (SS) No. 127 of 2025
Deepika Ramola ...Petitioner
Vs.
Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission
...Respondent
Writ Petition (SS) No. 164 of 2025
Rahul Kumar and Others ...Petitioners
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Others ...Respondents
Presence:
1. Mr. Vinay Kumar and Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, learned counsel for
the petitioners.
2. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Additional C.S.C. with Mr.
Pradeep Hairiya, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Hon'ble Rakesh Thapliyal, J. (Oral)
The petitioner participate in a selection process for
appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher LT grade (Science),
which is being conducted by respondent no. 5. The petitioner is
raising an issue with regard to certain questions by submitting
that the answer-sheet contains the wrong answer.
2. In many cases this court observed that the selection
process are not being initiated in a proper manner and it is very
strange that answer key giving incorrect answer and the same are
now being disputed by way of petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
3. In many cases this court also observed that
provisional merit list are being published by the selecting body in
its website asking candidates for their objection and also asking
the candidate to appear for document verification.
4. This court also observed earlier that once the
requisition sent by the Government and received by the selecting
body then selecting body if want to raise any objection on the
requisition then the selecting body can seek clarification from the
Government; however, once the selection is commenced by
issuing advertisement then the selection should be proceeded
strictly as per the requisition an no further query can be raised on
requisition.
5. Further, after completion of selection process the
selecting body should send the select list to the Government or
the department concerned without publishing it in the website
and if the Government/concerned department accept the select
list then Government/concerned department can call the selected
candidate to appear for document verification.
6. Prima-facie this court is of the view that the
commission have no authority to go with document verification.
Even under the Rules there is no such provision for publishing
provisional list or merit list in its website.
7. Sometimes this court also observed in many cases
that either the instruction issued by the Government/department
concerned are being bypassed by the selecting body or some of
the officials of the Government/concerned department are
intervening in the selection process.
8. Any interference in the mid of the selection is wholly
unwarranted in order to secure the secrecy and transparency in
the selection.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed before this
court copy of Uttarakhand Act No. 20 of 2024 i.e. Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission Act, 2014, wherein
the procedure with regard to the Chairman of the selecting body
is provided.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that under
this Act no eligibility criteria has been prescribed.
11. In reference to this, learned counsel for the petitioner
placed before this court a full bench decision of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in the case of Salil Sabhlok vs. Union of
India and Others decided on 17.08.2011 and the matter
subsequently came up before the Hon'ble Apex Court also in the
case of State of Punjab vs. Salil Sabhlok and Others 2013(5)
SCC page 1.
12. Let the respondents particularly the State may go
through with these judgments and file their response.
13. Apart from this, since the petitioner is disputing the
answer-sheet of the selecting body and in such an eventuality let
the Government may depute some experts to examine the
answer-sheet and submit their response in this regard.
14. Put up this matter on 03.03.2025.
.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
18.02.2025
PR
