Uttarakhand High Court
Sandeep Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 27 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
Special Appeal No.346 of 2025
Sandeep Kumar -- Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
Judgment reserved on 17.06.2025
Judgment delivered on 27.06.2025
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. S. K. Shandilya, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. J. C. Pandey, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3.
Mr. Prateek Kanojia, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Himanshu Pal,
learned counsel for respondent no.4 through V.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Alok Mahra, J.)
The present Special Appeal has been filed by
the appellant/petitioner for quashing & setting aside the
impugned judgment and order dated 07.10.2024 passed
by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.2715 of
2017, "Sandeep Kumar vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Others".
2. Brief facts of the case are that, in the year
2015, respondent no.2 issued an advertisement for the
post of Sinchpal in Irrigation Department, whereby 46
posts were advertised; that, out of 46 posts, one post
was reserved for General Category (Physically
Handicapped); that, appellant is a physically handicapped
person, having disability of about 57%; that, written
examination was held on 21.05.2017, which consists 100
questions, one mark was to be awarded for correct
answer and 1.25 marks were to be deducted for wrong
answer; that, petitioner secured 72.50 marks out of 100
marks, whereas, respondent no.4 secured 72.75 marks in
the aforesaid examination and was declared successful
candidate under Physically Handicapped (General
Category). Question No.100 in SET-A with four options
indicated in the question paper, reads as under:-
"100. Where did Frederick Smeta establish a
Butterfly Museum?
(A) Khurpatal (B) Nainital
(C) Saat Tal (D) Bheem Tal"
3. Initially Examination Board i.e. respondent
nos.2 and 3 have given answer key of question no.100 of
Set-A and option 'D' was correct answer, but in the
revised answer key of question no.100 of Set-A option 'C'
was shown as correct answer; that, as a consequence
thereof, 1.25 marks were got deducted from total marks
of the appellant; that, appellant moved a representation
dated 24.07.2017, but no action was taken on his
representation; thereafter, he preferred Writ Petition
(S/S) No.2715 of 2017, in which an interim order came
to be passed on 20.09.2017, pursuant to which, the post
reserved for Physically Handicapped Candidate (General
Category) could not be filled up by respondent no.4. Writ
Petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide
its judgment & order dated 07.10.2024. Feeling
aggrieved, the appellant/petitioner challenged the
judgment & order passed by learned Single Judge.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit
that the examination conducted by the same selecting
body has conducted the examination for the post of
Secretariat Security Cadre and the correct answer "as to
where the Museum of Colourful Butterflies is situated"
was mentioned as 'Bhimtal'; while, in the present
examination, for the same question, the correct answer
has been mentioned as 'Sattal'.
6. This Court has called the record relating to this
selection and, on 21.04.2025, the Secretary, Uttarakhand
Subordinate Service Selection Commission also appeared
before the Court and he admitted that the revised answer
key was published on the recommendation of the subject
expert, but he failed to explain as to how the subject
expert has given opinion when it is an admitted fact that
the Colourful Butterflies Museum is situated at Bhimtal;
that, the Commission has sacrosanct duty to conduct the
examination with utmost due care and sincerity, as it
relates to the career prospects of the students, who have
put in many years of hard work and preparation. It is the
duty of the Commission not to blindfold rely on the
opinion given by the experts and should device a
mechanism to counter check the opinion given by the
experts, especially in relation to questions relating to
geographical relations of the place; that, the Commission
has filed the supplementary affidavit in the present
Special Appeal, in which it has been categorically stated
that one post reserved for Physically Handicapped
candidate (General Category) is still vacant and if the
appellant is granted 1.25 marks, then he would rank first
in the merit of Physically Handicapped candidate
(General Category).
7. In light of the above submissions, the
Commission is directed to send its recommendation to
the State Government for appointment of the appellant
under the Physically Handicapped candidate (General
Category), as the appellant would rank on the top of the
merit of Physically Handicapped candidate (General
Category), after correcting the mistake committed by the
Commission. Entire exercise shall be completed by the
Commission within a period of two weeks from the date
of production of certified copy of this order and it would
be appropriate for respondent no.1/ State to act on the
recommendation of the Commission i.e. respondent no.2
and offer appointment to the appellant on the post of
Sinchpal under the Physically Handicapped candidate
(General Category) within a period of three weeks after
receiving the recommendation from the Commission, as
the selection pertains to the year 2015 and, more
particularly, that the appellant was wrongly denied the
appointment on the basis of mistake committed by the
Commission. It would be left open for the appellant to
agitate the issue of seniority and another service benefit
as and when the cause arises.
8. The Special Appeal stands ordered accordingly.
There shall no order as to costs.
(G. NARENDAR, C. J.)
(ALOK MAHRA, J.)
Dated: 27.06.2025
BS
