Uttarakhand High Court
Muzammil Hasan vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA
4th June, 2025
Writ Petition (S/B) No.89 of 2025
Muzammil Hasan -- Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr.
Brijendra Singh, Mr. Shubhang Dobhal and Mr. Suryakant Maithani,
learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. B. S. Parihar, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State.
Mr. S. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Sansadhan
Vikas Evam Nirman Nigam.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Alok Mahra, J.)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the Office Memorandum dated 24.06.2024
passed by respondent no.3, whereby petitioner has been
dismissed from service. Petitioner has further prayed that
he may be reinstated in service and may be permitted to
discharge his duties, which he was discharging before
issuance of the aforesaid Office Memorandum.
2. Brief facts of the case are that respondent-
Nigam issued an advertisement on 18.07.2001, whereby
71 posts of Assistant Engineer (Civil and Mechanical)
were advertised; that, out of these 71 posts, 12 posts
were reserved for OBC category candidates; that,
petitioner belongs to OBC category and fulfilled all the
eligibility conditions as per the advertisement for the said
post; that, written test was held and merit list was
prepared; that, petitioner, by virtue of his merit, was
selected against the post reserved for OBC category. As
per the merit list, only 6 OBC candidates were available
to secure the cut off marks and remaining 6 posts
reserved for OBC candidates were carried forward.
Pursuant to the selection, petitioner was issued
appointment letter dated 13.05.2005, thereafter,
petitioner discharged his duty to the satisfaction of the
higher authorities and neither any complaint nor any
charge sheet was issued to the petitioner; that, petitioner
was subsequently, promoted to the post of Executive
Engineer vide order dated 29.06.2015; that, after 17
years, petitioner was issued show-cause notice dated
03.02.2022 to the effect that since he is not permanent
resident of State of Uttarakhand, as such, reservation of
OBC category was wrongly given to him, as such
reservation was available only to the candidates, who
were the permanent residents of State of Uttarakhand.
Petitioner filed his reply to the above show-cause notice,
stating that, while seeking appointment on the said post,
he has not misrepresented or played any fraud on the
respondents. Thereafter, an inquiry was conducted by the
Department, wherein it has come that petitioner has
neither misrepresented nor played any fraud while
seeking appointment. Beside this, the Inquiry Committee
has submitted that petitioner has rendered 17 years of
service in the Department. The Inquiry Officer, who was
the Managing Director of the Corporation, opined that no
punishment can be given to the petitioner. The said
inquiry report was forwarded to the State Government;
that, the State Government vide its letter dated
17.05.2023 directed the respondent no.3-Managing
Director to take further action against the petitioner on
the ground that he was wrongly granted benefit of
reservation as he was not domicile of Uttaranchal; that,
in pursuance of the above letter, again show-cause notice
was issued to the petitioner on 08.06.2023, wherein
petitioner was asked to show-cause as to why his
appointment be not cancelled, as he was not entitled for
reservation of OBC category as he was not a permanent
resident of State of Uttarakhand; that, thereafter,
petitioner replied to the said show-cause notice on
29.06.2023. In his reply, the petitioner reiterated his
earlier stand. Beside this, he has submitted that sufficient
number of posts reserved for OBC candidates remained
unfilled, as candidates belonging to the reserved category
were not available or failed to secure the minimum cut-
off marks, thus, he has submitted that the condition of
having permanent resident certificate of State of
Uttarakhand was waived by the respondents by offering
appointment to the petitioner against the reserved post;
that, without taking into consideration the grounds
mentioned by the petitioner in his reply to the show-
cause notice, the impugned dismissal order has been
passed, whereby the service of the petitioner has been
dismissed on the post of Executive Engineer vide order
dated 24.06.2024.
3. We have heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned
Senior Counsel and Mr. S.S Chauhan, learned counsel for
respondent nos.2 and 3.
4. On perusal of the impugned order, prima facie,
it is apparent that the complainant appears to have been
set-up by co-workers.
5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3
would submit that posts in the reserved categories were
reserved for only candidates from Uttaranchal (now
Uttarakhand) and the petitioner is from outside
Uttaranchal.
6. The fact remains that it is not the case of the
respondents that sufficient number of candidates from
Uttaranchal to the category of OBC were available way
back in 2005 and, despite the availability of candidates
hailing from the reserved category from Uttaranchal,
appointments have been made. The order of appointment
clearly notes their home districts in Column-5 and
appointments have been made despite the respondents
being well-aware of the fact that the petitioner came from
a place outside the Uttaranchal. At this stage, it can only
be, prima facie, inferred that the State, which was duly
created in 2000 and was facing a shortage of personnel,
that too, technical personnel, has knowingly acted and
issued appointment orders, which, in our prima facie
opinion, would amount to waiver of the condition. It is
not the case of the respondent-State that the petitioner
has placed fabricated certificates or false caste
certificates. The authenticity of the caste certificates not
being in question and the caste certificate produced by
the petitioner having been issued by the respective State,
the action at this point of time appears to be a colourable
exercise. Reliance on the condition that the candidates
should hail from the State of Uttaranchal having been
consciously ignored, the question that stands before this
Court is whether the State can now turn around and try
to take the advantage of its own wrong. Assuming that
the appointment was made contrary to the conditions
imposed by itself, the undisputed fact is that after the
appointment the authorities have occasion to scrutinize
the reservation granted to the petitioner as a reserved
category candidate, while giving him appointment even at
the time of joining his service, at the time of making him
permanent employee, and also at the time of issuing
promotion order, promoting the petitioner on the post of
Executive Engineer in the year 2015, the respondents did
not take any action against the petitioner and after
serving for nearly two decades, the impugned order has
been passed. The present complaint perhaps is the result
of a rat race amongst the peers. The State having
consciously acted and having made the condition, the
question is whether the State is estopped from taking
advantage of its own wrong. Hence, the order impugned
is liable to be set aside.
7. As per the submissions of learned counsel for
respondent no.2 and 3, the petitioner could not have
been granted the benefit of reservation as such his initial
appointment is bad in the eyes of law. In support of this
contention, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3
have relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Khilendra Singh Vs. Union of India (UOI)
Ministry of Agriculture and Ors., decided on 28.11.2017
in Civil Appeal No.19862 of 2017. The controversy in the
above case was relating to the genuineness of the caste
certificate, which is entirely different from the issue in
hand, thus, the above judgment is for no help to the
respondents.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the considered opinion that while seeking
appointment, the petitioner has neither misrepresented
before the respondents authorities nor placed
fabricated/false caste certificates before the concerned
authorities and by its action the respondents have waived
the conditions given in the advertisement relating to
grant of benefit of reservation to only those candidates,
who are domicile of State of Uttaranchal, therefore, in the
facts and circumstances of the case and also for the fact
that the petitioner has rendered about two decades of
satisfactory service in the department and undoubtedly
his termination would not only impinge upon the
economic security of the petitioner and his dependents,
but also adversely affect his career; that, this would be
highly unjust and grossly unfair to the petitioner, who is
innocent appointee, of an error made by the selection
committee two decades ago. Thus, the impugned order of
dismissal dated 24.06.2024 cannot be sustained in the
eyes of law and is hereby set aside. The writ petition
stands allowed.
9. The respondent authorities are directed to
reinstate the petitioner in service on the post of Executive
Engineer, from which he has been dismissed, with all
consequential benefits. There shall no order as to costs.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 04.06.2025
BS
