Uttarakhand High Court

Unknown vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 21 May, 2025

Author: Ravindra Maithani

Bench: Ravindra Maithani

  HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
                      Writ Petition No. 850 of 2025 (S/S)

 Prakash Singh Jalal
                                                                  ........Petitioner

                                     Versus

 State of Uttarakhand and others
                                                              .....Respondents

 Present:-
        Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
        Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State.
        Mr. Ketan Joshi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for
        the respondent no. 3.


                                    Judgment

 Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to the

memorandum dated 09.05.2024 issued by the respondent no.

3/Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission ("the

Commission"), by which revised answer key of the written examination

held on 10.03.2024 was published. The petitioner has also sought

related reliefs.

2. The facts necessary to appreciate the controversy, briefly

stated, are as follows:-

(i) The Commission issued an advertisement on

18.01.2024 inviting applications from the eligible

candidates for selection of 59 vacancies of Physical

Trainer in the department of Youth Welfare &

Prantiya Rakshak Dal.

(ii) According to the advertisement, the candidates,

who obtain minimum marks in physical suitability

test, were to be permitted to participate in the

written examination.

(iii) The petitioner cleared the physical suitability test.

He appeared in the written examination held on

10.03.2024. He was provided Question Booklet

Series 'B'.

(iv) The initial answer key of the written examination

was published by the Commission on its official

website on 12.03.2024 and candidates were also

required to file their objection against any answer,

on or before 17.03.2024, through online mode.

(v) The petitioner submitted objections against certain

answers.

(vi) The final answer key was published on 09.05.2024.

(vii) The respondent no. 3 Commission did not accept

the objection of the petitioner with regard to four

questions i.e. Question Nos. 15, 68, 89 and 94.



(viii) On    09.05.2024,    itself,   the   respondent   no.   3

        Commission          published        a     provisional

recommendation of the candidates for document

verification.

(ix) Thereafter the petitioner sought information under

the Right to Information Act. It was revealed that

the petitioner had obtained 42.75 marks in the

written examination.

(x) The petitioner sought certain other informations.

Thereafter, the petition has been filed challenging

the revised answer key published by the

respondent no. 3 Commission on 09.05.2024, with

further relief that the answer key of certain

questions may be revised.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused

the file.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

after initial publication of answer key on 12.03.2024 by the

Commission, the petitioner also filed objections within the stipulated

time; four of its objections were not accepted by the respondent no. 3

Commission. Learned counsel would submit that the questions and

answers are demonstratively wrong; petitioner had sought information

under the Right to Information Act from the Commission, which was

not supplied to him; he had to file first and second appeal; despite

that, he was not given all the information and his final request has

been rejected on 27.01.2025.

5. The Court posed a question to the learned counsel for the

petitioner as to why after such delay, the writ petition may be

entertained?

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had less resources to immediately approach the Court; after

declaration of revised answer key on 09.05.2024, the petitioner did

make a representation; he kept on collecting the information and

finally his prayer was rejected by the respondent no. 3 Commission on

27.01.2025; therefore, he is before the Court. Learned counsel would

submit that where there is merit, merely on the ground of delay such

petition should not be dismissed at the threshold. He would also

submit that still there are many positions vacant, therefore, the

petition may be entertained.

7. It is settled law that the Court should not ordinarily

permit to belated resort to extraordinary remedy of writ jurisdiction. In

the case of Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others , (2007) 9 SCC 274,

the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "The High Court does not

ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy

because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience

and bring in its train new injustices, and if writ jurisdiction is

exercised after unreasonable delay, it may have the effect of

inflicting not only hardship and inconvenience but also injustice

on third parties".

8. In the case of City and Industrial Development

Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others, (2009) 1 SCC

168, the Hon'ble Supreme Court further interpreted and explained the

concept of delay in preferring the writ petitions and, in para 26,

observed as follows:-

"26. It is well settled and needs no restatement at our hands that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the jurisdiction of a High Court to issue appropriate writs particularly a writ of mandamus is highly discretionary. The relief cannot be claimed as a right. One of the grounds for refusing relief is that the person approaching the High Court is guilty of unexplained delay and laches. Inordinate delay in moving the court for a writ is an adequate ground for refusing a writ. The principle is that the courts exercising public law jurisdiction do not encourage agitation of stale claims and exhuming matters where the rights of third parties may have accrued in the interregnum."

9. What would be delay under the facts and circumstances

of the case may not be delay in different set of facts. It depends on the

facts and circumstances of each case. In service matters, this concept

has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union

of India and others v. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 and in para 7,

the principles have been summarized as follows:-

"7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc. affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition."

10. Looking into the length of time of about one year may

give an impression that the writ petition is not delayed. But, then what

is under challenge is the answer key of a public examination

conducted by the respondent no. 3 Commission. Public examination

has a sanctity. They ensure purity and transparency in a time bound

manner. It has to gain the confidence of masses so as to infuse hope in

the candidates appearing in future.

11. The chronology of events in the instant case needs to be

revisited again. It is as follows:-

(i) On 18.01.024, advertisement was published.

(ii) On 10.03.2024, written examination was

conducted.

                     (iii)   On   12.03.2024,     first     answer   key    was

                             published     inviting     objections   from   the

                             candidates.


                     (iv)    On 09.05.2024, revised answer key was