Uttarakhand High Court
June 16 vs Rakesh Kumar on 16 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:4993-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Special Appeal No.786 of 2017
June 16, 2025
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rakesh Kumar ...Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Sushil Vashishta, learned Standing Counsel for the appellants/State
None present for the respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. There is a delay of 157 days in filing the
appeal. For the reasons indicated in the delay
condonation application, delay in filing the special appeal
is condoned. Accordingly, Delay Condonation Application
(CLMA No. 12601 of 2017) stands disposed of.
2. State has filed this intra-court appeal,
challenging the judgment dated 30.03.2017, rendered by
learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.790 of
2016, whereby writ petition filed by the respondent was
disposed of with direction to the authorities to consider
the case of the respondent for appointment on the post of
Assistant Teacher (Primary) as per his qualification
prescribed under the Rules.
2025:UHC:4993-DB
3. It is not in dispute that respondent had applied
for the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary
School, pursuant to an Advertisement, issued on
17.02.2016. As per the Advertisement, while determining
the quality point marks, the marks scored in the Teacher
Eligibility Test (for short, T.E.T.) shall also be taken into
consideration.
4. The application made by respondent was
rejected on the ground that he had given an incorrect
information regarding marks scored in T.E.T.; his actual
score of marks in T.E.T. was 77 out of 150 while he had
mentioned 110 out of 200 in his application. Another
ground for rejecting respondent's application was that he
had passed T.E.T. Examination in 2015 while in his
application he had mentioned year of passing T.E.T.
Examination as 2007. The third ground for rejecting
respondent's application was that he had not indicated
the marks scored in B.Ed. Practical in his application
form.
5. Learned Single Judge held that the application
made by the respondent could not have been rejected on
such small mistakes and directed the authorities to
consider his case for appointment as per his qualification
prescribed under the Rules.
6. Learned State Counsel submits that in the
Advertisement, it was clearly mentioned in clause 7 ¼>½]
which corresponds to 7 (i), that candidate would be
responsible for any incorrect information given in the
2025:UHC:4993-DB
application form and further that the defective forms
shall be rejected.
7. Learned State Counsel submits that, in the
selection in question, a large number of applications were
received; selection was to be made as per seniority with
reference to the year of passing B.Ed. Examination and,
if two or more candidates passed B.Ed. Examination in
the same year, only then their comparative merit, based
on the quality marks, was to be looked at. He submits
that the Selecting Body made comparative assessment of
merit of candidates, based on the information given by
them in their application forms, and if candidates who
had supplied incomplete or erroneous information, are
directed to be selected and appointed in disregard of the
condition mentioned in Clause 7 ¼>½ of the
Advertisement, then it will be difficult for the Selecting
Body to hold selection.
8. He further submits that applications made by
several other candidates, who were much more
meritorious than the respondent, were rejected only on
the ground that the information furnished by them in
their application forms was incorrect or incomplete,
therefore, considering the case of the respondent alone
for appointment, would cause great injustice to such
other similarly situated candidates, who accepted the
decision taken by the Competent Authority to reject their
candidature and who did not challenge such rejection.
9. We find substance in the submissions made by
learned Standing Counsel. Since the Advertisement in
2025:UHC:4993-DB
question unequivocally provides that a candidate who
furnishes incorrect or incomplete information would
suffer rejection of his candidature and the authorities
had acted strictly in terms of the relevant Clause,
therefore, no exception can be made in favour of the writ
petitioner (respondent herein) when candidature of other
candidates, who made similar mistakes was rejected.
Therefore, making exception only in favour of the writ
petitioner/respondent would not be proper. The reason
given by the learned Single Judge, directing the
authorities to consider respondent's candidature, does
not appear to be valid. Thus, the impugned judgment
warrants interference. We, accordingly, allow the appeal
and set aside the impugned judgment. However, we make
it clear that if respondent has been appointed in terms of
the impugned judgment, then his services will not be
disturbed.
(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
16.06.2025 16.06.2025
Rajni
RAJINI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=97cfa6e4cbd49c07b876db48448ac37
01a9ae475a2547e4b7f1d9b1f17d01342,
GUSAIN
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=8D039BC77BD1A2222B4DF4FC
80D4557562F95BEBA013F530616A158A0A87
8BD8, cn=RAJINI GUSAIN
Date: 2025.06.19 00:59:23 -07'00'
