Uttarakhand High Court
Kamal Singh Kulyal And Another ... vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 11 June, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 49 of 2025
Kamal Singh Kulyal and another ........Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others ........Respondents
Present:-
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Ganesh Kandpal D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos. 1 to
3.
Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the respondent no.4.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to a
communication dated 27.12.2024 issued by the respondent no.1/the
State of Uttarakhand ("the State"), by which, the permission has been
denied for making appointment on unfilled vacancies of advertised
post of Forester on the ground that life of the waiting list has expired.
The petitioners also seek direction that the State may be directed to
consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment against
unfilled vacancies on the post of Forester based on advertisement
dated 18.12.2019 issued by the respondent no.4/Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission ("the Commission") as the
names of the petitioners have been recommended by the Commission
on 21.07.2024 in the waiting list.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that pursuant
to an advertisement issued on 18.12.2019 by the Commission, the
petitioners applied for the post. After undergoing the entire process,
the Commission made recommendation in favour of the 292 selected
candidates for their appointment on 21.09.2023. Thereafter, the
chronology has been stated:-
(i) On 14.11.2023, the Commission also
recommended 16 candidates for appointment to the
post of Forester.
(ii) On 22.02.2024, Commission recommended four
candidates for appointment to the post of Forester.
(iii) The respondent nos. 2 and 3, Forest Department
made a communication to the Commission
informing that 9 candidates, who were
recommended for appointment have not joined.
Therefore, the Commission made further
recommendation for appointment of 6 candidates
for appointment on 21.07.2024. The petitioners
names were included in that recommendation. But,
when approached by its communication dated
27.12.2024, the State has declined approval for
making appointment on the unfilled vacancies from
the waiting list on the ground that the life of
waiting list has expired after one year from the date
of recommendation. It is impugned herein.
4. The State has filed its counter affidavit. According to it,
the first recommendation was made by the Commission on
21.09.2023 and after one year of it, the waiting list gets expired.
Therefore, the State had declined to give appointment to the
petitioners by the impugned order.
5. In fact, the petitioners have also raised an objection that
the life of waiting list for one year has been fixed by Waiting List
Rules, 2023 ("2023 Rules"), which may not be applicable in the
instant case because initial advertisement was issued in the year
2019.
6. According to the State, as per office memorandum dated
03.07.2007, the merit list published by Departmental Selection
Committees for direct recruitment posts outside the purview of the
Public Service Commission shall not be used after one year from the
date of receipt of such select list. This office memorandum has been
enclosed by the State alongwith its counter affidavit as Annexure 2.
7. Respondent no.4 has not filed any affidavit.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the
petitioners' name had already recommended for appointment by the
Commission on 21.07.2024. He would submit that the life of waiting
list may be counted from the last recommendation made from the
merit list, which in the instant case, according to learned counsel for
the petitioners was made on 22.02.2024. He would submit that the
time of one year should have been counted from this date. But, even
otherwise, he would submit that the first select recommendation of
292 candidates was made by the Commission to the Appointing
Authority on 21.09.2023. If the period of one year of the waiting list is
counted from that date, it would expire on 20.09.2024. But prior to
that, it is argued that on 21.07.2024, the recommendation had
already been made from waiting list by the respondent for
appointment of six candidates, including the petitioners. Therefore, it
is argued that the waiting list has not lost its life. It was still alive.
9. Learned State counsel would submit that after
recruitment pursuant to an advertisement dated 18.12.2019 of the
Commission, fresh requisition has already been sent by the
Administrative Department to the Commission on 09.05.2024.
Therefore, on that date, the life of waiting list had already expired.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit
that, in fact, different treatment has been given by the State to the
proposal given for the post to the candidates appearing for the
examination of Forester and the candidates who appeared to the
posts of Forest Guards. He submits that the State had treated the
petitioners' cadre differently than the Forest Guard. In the case of
Forest Guard also requisition had already been sent when
recommendation from waiting list was received. But the requisition
was ignored on the ground that it had been returned by the
Commission to the Administrative Department. Therefore, the process
was not pending at the level of the Commission. It is argued that in
the instant case also, although, the requisition was forwarded on
09.05.2024 to the Commission, but the Commission had returned it
to the Administrative Department on 14.08.2024. Therefore, by the
same analogy, it cannot be said that any requisition was pending with
the Commission. Reference has been made to the Annexure 13 which
is impugned communication as well as Annexure 14, by which
approval was granted for the appointment of Forest Guards from the
waiting list, which was received post forwarding of subsequent
requisition by the Administrative Department to the Commission,
which was returned by the Commission.
11. The case of petitioners cannot be differentiated. The State
has ignored a requisition which had been returned to the Commission
to the Administrative Department is the case of appointments of
Forest Guards from the waiting list (Annexure 14 to the writ petition).
On the same analogy, the petitioners' case has to be treated. The
requisition dated 09.05.2024 had also been returned by the
Commission to the Administrative Department on 14.08.2024. When
the decision was taken in the case of the petitioners on 27.12.2024,
on that date, there was no requisition pending. Therefore, the
recommendation dated 21.07.2024 made by the Commission deserves
consideration by the State.
12. The factual position is not in dispute. The
recommendations were made by the Commission for appointment of
candidates to the post of Forester on 21.09.2023, 14.11.2023 and
22.02.2024. Thereafter, recommendation for appointment of six
candidates to the post of Forester was made by the Commission from
the waiting list on 21.07.2024. This has not been approved by the
impugned communication dated 27.12.2024 by the State on that
ground that the waiting list had outlived its life because its life is for
one year from the date of recommendation. Even if the date of
recommendation is counted from 21.09.2023, one year period expires
on 20.09.2024. Prior to it, the Commission had already forwarded the
recommendation to the Administrative Department for appointment of
six candidates for appointment to the position of Foresters. If it is
kept pending with the respondents, it cannot be said that waiting list
has outlived its life. Waiting list was utilized within the time when it
was in existence. Within one year from the date of first
recommendation i.e. from 21.09.2023, the recommendations were
made from the waiting list. Therefore, it cannot be said that approval
cannot be accorded for appointment of such 6 candidates, who were
recommended for appointment by the Commission on 21.07.2024 on
the ground that the waiting list had outlived its life. In view it, this
Court is of the view that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law.
13. The waiting list has been used within its life. Inaction on
the part of the respondents may not be permitted to make the waiting
list redundant. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order the
writ petition deserves to be allowed and impugned order set aside.
14. The writ petition is allowed.
15. Impugned order is set aside.
16. The respondent/State is directed to consider the
candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the position of
Foresters on the basis of the recommendation that has been made by
the Commission on 21.07.2024.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
11.06.2025
Jitendra
