Uttarakhand High Court
Kamal Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 23 July, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 613 of 2024 (S/S)
Kamal Kumar ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Another ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Ketan Joshi and Mr. Hemant Singh Mahra, Advocates for the
petitioner.
Mr. R.S. Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State.
Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the respondent no.2/the
Commission.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The respondent no.2/Uttarakhand Subordinate Service
Selection Commission ("the Commission"), on 13.10.2020, issued an
advertisement inviting applications for recruitment to the position of
Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Art) in the State of Uttarakhand. The
petitioner responded to the advertisement. In the meanwhile, certain
service rules were amended by the State of Uttarakhand. Writ petitions
were filed and by the judgment dated 15.05.2023, passed in Special
Appeal No.78 of 2022, Pushpa Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others;
and connected matters ("the appeal"), the Division Bench of this Court
struck down the amendment made in the service rules and directed
the respondents to initiate the process of recruitment afresh, without
any delay. The Commission issued fresh advertisement on 14.03.2024
for the same post, but the cut off date for determining age was fixed as
on 01.07.2024. The petitioner is aggrieved by it.
2. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he was eligible for
appointment of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade (Art) when initially on
13.10.2020, applications were invited by the Commission. For no fault
of the petitioner, the recruitment process has been cancelled.
Therefore, the instant petition has been filed that the condition of
determining the age on 01.07.2024 be quashed, and the Commission
may be directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the
recruitment process.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner responded to the advertisement dated 13.10.2020 issued by
the Commission for recruitment to the position of Assistant Teacher,
L.T. Grade (Art), but that advertisement could not reach to its logical
conclusion because in between rules were amended by the State
Government; dates for submission of application forms was extended,
but, subsequently, those rules were struck down by the Division
Bench of this Court by the judgment and order dated 15.05.2022,
passed in the appeal. It is submitted that again, fresh advertisement
has been issued on 14.03.2024, but for determining age, the cut off
date has been changed, and it is fixed as on 01.07.2024, which may
adversely affect the prospects of the petitioner in participating in the
recruitment process, for no fault of his; in fact, subsequently, the
petitioner came to know that the State vide Government Order
No.1468/XXIV-B-1/24/01(28)/2024, dated 17.08.2024, had already
issued a communication to the Commission that the application forms
submitted pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.10.2020, may be
considered as valid application forms in response to the advertisement
issued on 14.03.2024; the petitioner has been provisionally permitted
to participate in the selection process, which is still underway. He
further submits that in view of the Government Order No.1468/XXIV-
B-1/24/01(28)/2024, dated 17.08.2024, now the respondents may be
directed to consider the application of the petitioner, which he had
submitted pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.10.2020, issued by
the Commission.
5. In the instant matter, despite opportunity having been
given, the respondents did not choose to file counter affidavit. In fact,
on 16.05.2025, a statement was given on behalf of the State that since
the matter pertains to the Commission, no counter affidavit is to be
filed.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that in view of the
Government Order No.1468/XXIV-B-1/24/01(28)/2024, dated
17.08.2024, the application form that has been filed by the petitioner
pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Commission on
13.10.2020, may be considered as a valid application form in response
to the fresh advertisement dated 14.03.2024.
7. This proposition has been admitted by learned counsel
for the Commission.
8. In view of it, this Court is of the view that the writ
petition deserves to be allowed with certain directions.
9. The writ petition is allowed.
10. As per the Government Order No.1468/XXIV-B-
1/24/01(28)/2024, dated 17.08.2024, the Commission is directed to
consider the application that has been filed by the petitioner pursuant
to the advertisement dated 13.10.2020, as valid application pursuant
to the fresh advertisement dated 14.03.2024, issued by the
Commission.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
23.07.2025
Ravi Bisht
