4 June vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1036 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

4 June vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 4 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                                    2025:UHC:4512-DB



HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
       Writ Petition Service Bench No. 118 of 2019
                          04 June, 2025



Bhupendra Singh Rawat & others                     -----Petitioners

                               Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others                     ---Respondents

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-
Mr. Rahul Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioners
Mr. D.S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand /
respondent no. 1.
Mr. Ishwari Dutt Paliwal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for
the State of Uttar Pradesh / respondent no. 3.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

                          JUDGMENT

Petitioners participated in a selection held by

U.P. Public Service Commission, before State

Reorganisation. The said selection was for vacancies in

the hill sub-cadre. The result of the selection was also

declared before State Reorganisation, in which,

petitioners were declared successful for the post of

Principal, Government Intermediate Colleges.

2025:UHC:4512-DB

2. By means of this writ petition, petitioners have

sought the following reliefs:-

"1- a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and quash the order dated 11.10.2018 Contained in Annexure No. 14 to the Writ petition.

2- a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the letter of the central government dated 10.3.2014, 27.2.2015 & 13.1.2016 and the order dated 29.8.2018 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in civil appeal no. 8336-8337 of 2011 Krishan Kumar Madan and others V/s Ashok Kumar and Others."

3. Annexure No.-14 to the writ petition is an

order dated 11.10.2018 passed by Secretary, Secondary

Education, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby

representation made by the petitioners for seeking

joining in State of Uttarakhand was rejected.

4. Perusal of the rejection order dated 11.10.2018

reveals that the Secretary to the Government has

referred to the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in

the case of State of Uttaranchal and others v. Sidharth

Srivastava and others, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 336.

5. We are not inclined to interfere in the matter.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has

held that recommendations made by U.P. Public Service

Commission for appointment against vacancies in hill-sub

cadre is not binding upon Government of Uttarakhand.

Paragraph no. 29 of the said judgment is reproduced

below:-

2025:UHC:4512-DB "29. There is no difficulty in accepting the principles laid down in the cases of Shankarsan Dash [(1991) 3 SCC 47 :

1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] and Asha Kaul [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24 ATC 576] . But the High Court failed to apply those principles correctly to the facts of the present cases. As stated by the High Court, it is settled law that a candidate whose name is included in the select list does not get indefeasible right for appointment on the basis of the recommendations made by the Public Service Commission, but at the same time the Government has no absolute right to reject the recommendations and refuse appointment to the candidates recommended without a valid and reasonable ground for not accepting the recommenda-tions of U.P. PSC. The High Court found that the reasons given in the government order dated 29-8-2001 were not valid reasons for not accepting the recommendations of U.P. PSC. While discussing whether the recommendations of U.P. PSC are binding on the State Government of Uttaranchal, keeping in view the constitutional provisions and in particular, Section 78(4) of the Act, we have already expressed above that the recommendations of U.P. PSC are not binding to compel the State of Uttaranchal to give appointments to the candidates recommended by U.P. PSC. It is not possible to accept the view of the High Court that the reasons given in government order dated 29-8-2001 are not valid. On the other hand, we find that the reasons given in the said order are valid and reasonable. At any rate it cannot be said that the State of Uttaranchal arbitrarily or whimsically refused to give appointments to the selected candidates".

6. In view of the law declared by Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the reliefs as

claimed by petitioners cannot be granted.

7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of

with liberty to petitioner to approach the Competent

Authority in State of Uttar Pradesh.

(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 04.06.2025 Navin

NAVEEN DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046 f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15,

CHANDRA postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10381 9DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.06.05 10:29:50 +05'30'