Uttarakhand High Court
Shruti Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 12 March, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit
2025:UHC:1728-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition Service Bench No. 373 of 2017
Shruti Singh --Petitioner
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand and Others --Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:
None present for petitioner.
Mr. G.S. Negi, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State of
Uttarakhand/respondent No.1.
Mr. Himanshu Aswal, learned counsel holding brief of Mr.
Navnish Negi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Mr. Nishant Krishna Adhikari, learned counsel holding brief of
Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. (Oral)
Petitioner applied for the post of Forest Range
Officer pursuant to advertisement issued by Uttarakhand
Public Service Commission on 17.11.2015. As per the
advertisement, Bachelors Degree in Computer
Application/ Computer Science was one of the essential
qualification for the said post
2. Petitioner was having B.Tech. Degree in
Information Technology. She appeared in the written
examination and also in interview provisionally, but
ultimately her candidature was rejected as the certificate
of equivalence produced by her indicated that syllabus of
B. Tech. (I.T.) and B. Tech. (Computer Science and
Computer Application) is approximately similar.
3. Petitioner contends that certificate of
equivalence issued by H.N.B. Garhwal University, which
shows that there is similarity to the extent of 80% in the
curriculum of the two qualifications was sufficient to
declare petitioner as eligible and rejection of her
candidature is thus unsustainable.
2025:UHC:1728-DB
4. Mr. Nishant Krishna Adhikari, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No.3, however, submits that
rejection of candidature of petitioner by the Selecting
Body was justified, as there has to be 100% equivalence
between the two qualifications and only then the
candidate having some other qualification, not mentioned
in the Rules/ Advertisement, can be considered for
appointment.
5. In support of his contention, Mr. Adhikari
relies upon a judgment dated 21.06.2017 rendered by a
Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.428(S/B)
of 2014 (Asheesh Rana Vs. State of Uttarakhand and
Others). Para 4 and 5 of the said judgment are extracted
below for ready reference:-
"4. We would think that even going by Annexure No. 17,
which is a document produced by petitioner himself, it is
clear that even according to the certificate, there is
similarity in the course only to the extent of 80% between
Biochemical Engineering and Chemical Engineering and
there is difference, in so far as course are concerned, which
is described as 'small'.
5. When the Authorities have found that petitioner is
not eligible and even certificate produced by the petitioner
itself shows that there is similarity only to the extent of 80%
and there is difference, we cannot hold that petitioner is
eligible or is qualified, as per legal requirement."
6. Since, the facts of the present case are
identical to the facts of the judgment relied upon by
learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, therefore,
we do not find any reason to interfere with the decision
taken by the experts in the Selecting Body. Thus, the writ
petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.
7. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
12.03.2025
PN/-
