Uttarakhand High Court
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 21 May, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:4246-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Special Appeal No.243 of 2018
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ...Appellant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand & others ... Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for appellant appearing
through V.C.
Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for State of
Uttarakhand/respondent nos.4 to 6.
Coram: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. Writ Petitioner is a physically disabled person. As
per the disability certificate, his disability is to the extent
of 80%. He participated in selection for the post of Tax
and Revenue Inspector, pursuant to advertisement dated
01.10.2011. As per advertisement, there were total 38
vacancies on the post of Tax and Revenue Inspector in
Urban Development Department.
2. Counter affidavit filed by Uttarakhand Public
Service Commission indicates that out of 38 vacancies,
one was reserved for persons with bench mark disability.
After qualifying in the screening test, held by the
Commission, writ petitioner was called for interview.
According to him, he scored 45% marks in interview
which is more than the cut-off marks, fixed by the
Commission, yet he was not recommended for
appointment and the lone vacancy on the post of Tax
and Revenue Inspector reserved for disabled persons
2025:UHC:4246-DB
was carried forward for want of suitable candidate.
3. Writ petitioner made a representation, which was
rejected by the Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission vide order dated 17.04.2025, by holding
that the vacancy was not earmarked for a person having
disability in both legs. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 700 of
2015, filed by him challenging the rejection order was
allowed by learned Single Judge vide judgment dated
06.03.2018.
4. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has
challenged the said judgment by filing this intra-court
appeal. Relevant extract of the impugned judgment is
reproduced below:-
"The rules of the game cannot be changed midway as
per the settled law. It is a fit case where the principles of
promissory estoppel are applicable. Petitioner has altered his
position to his detriment by submitting his application by
going through the selection process, qualifying the
preliminary examination as well as the final examination.
Petitioner was also interviewed. His result was
declared but he was denied the appointment only on the
ground that he did not fall in the category notified by the
State Government to the Public Service Commission on
24.2.2014.
The fact of the matter is that the post of Tax and
Revenue Inspector under the physically challenged category
was not filled up and was carried forward. It presupposes that
other candidates with the possibility of one arm, one leg,
partially deaf and partially blind have not participated in the
selection process. Petitioner has participated in the selection
process, as noticed hereinabove, but was denied appointment
only on the basis of the clarification regarding horizontal
reservation, supplied to the Public Service Commission by
the State Government on 24.2.2014. The underlying
principle to provide reservation to a physically challenged
person is to enable him to seek public employment after
competing with other candidates as far as merit is concerned.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned
notification order dated 17.4.2015 is quashed and set aside.
The respondent- Public Service Commission is directed to
recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment on the
post of Tax and Revenue Inspector within four weeks from
today. Thereafter, the needful shall be done by the State
Government at the earliest.
2025:UHC:4246-DB
It is made clear that one post was reserved for the
petitioner pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court.
Pending application, if any, stands disposed of."
5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that State
Government sent a requisition for holding selection to
the Public Service Commission on 17.05.2010 and the
vacancies were advertised in terms of requisition on
01.10.2011, screening test was held on 01.09.2013;
result of screening test was declared on 15.05.2014 and
final result was declared on 03.03.2015. He further
submits that Public Service Commission was informed
by State Government vide letter dated 23.04.2014 that
out of 38 vacancies, which were advertised, one is
reserved for a person who is suffering following
disabilities:-
one arm/one leg/partially deaf/partially blind.
6. Thus, learned counsel for appellant submits that
since appellant do not fall in any one of the aforesaid
four disabilities, therefore, he was not recommended for
appointment. He thus submits that the view taken by
learned Single Judge that rules of the game were
changed midway, is not correct; since the identification
in terms of Section 32 of the Persons with Disabilities
(Equal Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995 was made only on 25.03.2011
and such identification was communicated to the
Commission in 2014, therefore, the view taken by
learned Single Judge is not correct.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent/writ
petitioner submits that identification of posts in terms of
Section 32 of the aforesaid Act was made before
2025:UHC:4246-DB
commencement of selection process. He submits that as
per the own showing of the appellant, the identification
of post was done on 25.03.2011 and the vacancy were
notified to general public on 01.10.2011, therefore, it
was incumbent upon State Government to communicate
the identification of post under Section 32 of the Act to
the Commission before issuance of advertisement. He
further submits that it was incumbent upon the Public
Service Commission to issue a corrigendum as soon as
the identification of posts under Section 32 of the Act
was brought to its knowledge. He further submits that
the writ petitioner (respondent herein) is the only person
with disability, who qualified in the interview, therefore,
he cannot be denied appointment on the specious plea
that the disability suffered by him is of a kind different
from the one identified by the State Government. He
thus submits that the rules of the game were changed
midway to the disadvantage of the writ petitioner,
therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in allowing
the writ petition and directing the Public Service
Commission to recommend his name for appointment.
8. We find substance in the submission made by
learned counsel for respondent. In the advertisement
issued on 01.10.2011 there was nothing to indicate that
a person who has disability in both legs is not eligible for
appointment nor kinds of disabilities which were
identified as suitable for appointment to the post of Tax
and Revenue Inspector were disclosed. The writ
petitioner was permitted to participate in the selection
for a post reserved for disabled persons, therefore, after
qualifying in the selection, he cannot be denied
appointment, on the ground that his disability is
2025:UHC:4246-DB
different. The stand taken by writ petitioner that he
qualified in the interview as he scored the minimum
bench mark, fixed for selection has not been denied by
the Commission. Thus, after qualifying in both the
stages of selection, writ petitioner earned a right to be
considered for appointment.
9. Section 36 of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunity, Protection of Rights and Full Participation)
Act, 1995 permits interchange of vacancies among
different kind of disabilities.
10. There is another aspect of the matter, namely, writ
petitioner was the only person with disability who
qualified screening test and was called for the interview.
According to him, he also qualified in the interview and if
he is denied appointment, then the vacancy will remain
unfilled which would be against the spirit of
parliamentary legislation, enacted in the year 1995.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered
opinion that any interference with the impugned
judgment would not be warranted in the peculiar facts
and circumstances of the case. Thus, Special Appeal
fails and is dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
21.05.2025
Arti
ARTI SINGH Digitally signed by ARTI SINGH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=487ed955e722ba65aab55409e686c12fb83a19325e8b66890fbee418e7b69c0d, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=26DC90E00D839E3E8714131F235087D2D87E133C57E7F4A7B2E734BE2521F982, cn=ARTI SINGH
Date: 2025.06.12 17:36:58 +05'30'
