Amita William vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 4528 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Amita William vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 22 September, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                           2025:UHC:8475
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
  HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI
       Writ Petition (S/S) No. 494 of 2024
Amita William                         --Petitioner
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
                             With
          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 525 of 2024
Sheetu Masih                          --Petitioner
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
                             With
          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 459 of 2024
Suman Mani and Another                --Petitioners
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 465 of 2024
Anuranjita Sharma and others          --Petitioners
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
                             With
          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 469 of 2024
Hemlata                               --Petitioner
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
                             With
          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 470 of 2024
Suchita Madu                          --Petitioner
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
                             With
          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 513 of 2024
Sunita Thapliyal                      --Petitioner
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
                             With
          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 514 of 2024
Beena Pant                            --Petitioner
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
                             With
          Writ Petition (S/S) No. 524 of 2024
Krishna                               --Petitioner
                            Versus
State of Uttarakhand and others       -Respondents
                               1
                                                              2025:UHC:8475
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Advocates:     Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate
for the petitioner in WPSS Nos. 494/2024 and 525/2024
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in WPSS Nos. 470/2024,
514/2024 and 524/2024.
Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for
the petitioner in WPSS No. 513/2024.
Mr. Narain Dutt Bhatt, Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. Gaurav Nagpal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate
for the respondents.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
                             JUDGMENT

1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 494 of 2024 (SS) alone are being discussed and considered. In Writ Petition No. 494 of 2024 (SS), petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the condition no.7 of the advertisement dated 11.3.2024 (annexed at Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) for age criteria as fixed by the respondent board in the Nursing Officer Examination 2024 as far as the maximum age limit of 42 years has been fixed.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent No. 4 Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Medical Board Dehradun, to issue necessary corrigendum to the Advertisement dated 11.3.2024 by providing the relaxation in upper age limit in favor of the petitioner, who had earlier applied for the same vacancy in pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.12.2020 and 2.2.2021 by fixing the cut-off date for determination of upper age limit as provided in the said advertisement."

2. According to petitioner, she passed Diploma course in General Nursing & Midwifery from Ganga Sheel School of Nursing, Bareilly, in April, 2012; her date of birth is 17.06.1981; by virtue of academic qualification, possessed by her, she is eligible for appointment as Nursing Officer (Female) in Department of Medical Health and also in Department of Medical Education.

3. Mode of recruitment and conditions of service of Nursing Officer (Female) in aforesaid two departments are governed by same set of service Rules, namely,

2025:UHC:8475 Uttarakhand Subordinate Nurses (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2015.

4. Rule 15 of the said Rules lays down the criteria of selection. Earlier selection for the post of Nursing Officer (female) was merit based i.e. based on performance of a candidate in written examination; however, the rules were amended in 2022 and selection criteria was changed as year of passing the nursing training course. As per Rule 10 of the service rules, the upper age limit for appointment as Nursing Officer is 42 years.

5. It is not in dispute that an advertisement was issued by Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education on 12.12.2020, pursuant to requisition sent by Department of Medical Health, whereby 1238 vacancies on the post of Staff Nurse (now renamed as Nursing Officer (female)), were notified. As per the advertisement, anyone, who was less than 42 years of age as on 01.07.2020 were eligible for appointment.

6. It is the case of all the petitioners that they were within age, therefore they responded to the advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education on 12.12.2020 and they were waiting for the selection process to complete; however, selection process was abruptly cancelled on 02.02.2021 and on that day itself, another advertisement was issued but for the same number of vacancies.

7. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued by the selecting body i.e. Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education on 09.02.2021, whereby 1383 vacancies available in Department of Medical Education were added in the ongoing selection process, thus increasing the

2025:UHC:8475 number of vacancies to 2621. Thereafter, another corrigendum was issued by selecting body on 17.04.2021 in which, it was provided that cut-off date for determining age shall be 01.07.2020, instead of 01.01.2020.

8. Petitioner was within age in terms of the corrigendum dated 17.04.2021, therefore she was eligible. However, the selection process initiated by advertisement dated 02.02.2021 as modified by corrigendum dated 09.02.2021 was also cancelled by the selecting body i.e. Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education vide notification dated 13.06.2021.

9. Thereafter, another advertisement was issued on 03.01.2023 by a different selecting body i.e. Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board, whereby 1564 vacancies of Nursing Officer available in Department of Medical Health and Welfare were notified and cut-off date for determining age was indicated as 01.07.2022.

10. Thereafter, on 11.03.2024, Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board issued another advertisement for 1455 vacancies on the post of Nursing Officer for Government Medical Colleges; cut-off date for determining age was indicated as 01.07.2023.

11. The dispute is in respect of last advertisement issued in respect of Department of Medical Education. Since all the petitioners had become overage, with reference to cut-off date indicated in this advertisement, therefore, they have filed these writ petitions, contending that since the vacancies which after bifurcation were re- advertised on 11.03.2024, were advertised earlier also on 09.02.2021 and since cut-off date for determining age was fixed that time as 01.07.2020, therefore, the cut-off

2025:UHC:8475 date for determining their age should be 01.07.2020 and not 01.07.2023.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that identical issue was decided in a judgment dated 25.08.2025 rendered by coordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 483 of 2024 (SS). Para 25 and 26 of the said judgment are reproduced below:

"25. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in terms of age, the petitioners need protection of the Court. Admittedly, all the petitioners did apply pursuant to advertisement dated 12.12.2020, which continued with the advertisement dated 02.02.2021 and the corrigendum dated 09.02.2021 of UBTE. Then, the cut-off date for age determination was 01.07.2020. All the vacancies advertised then have never been filled up till date. For this, the petitioners cannot be faulted. The rules were changed in between. Therefore, this Court is of the view that in so far as the petitioners are concerned, even pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.03.2024, the cut-off date for determination of age should be 01.07.2020. Accordingly, the petitions deserve to be allowed.

26. All the writ petitions are allowed. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.03.2024 of the Board, the cut-off date for determining the age of the petitioners shall be 01.07.2020. By the interim orders of this Court, all the petitioners were permitted to participate in the recruitment process, but it was directed to the Board that their result shall not be declared. Now, in view of this judgment, the Board shall declare the result of the petitioners."

13. Mr. Narain Dutt, learned State Counsel submits that petitioners earlier filed writ petitions, claiming benefit of age relaxation in respect of vacancies of Department of Medical Health; pursuant to orders passed by coordinate Bench, petitioners were permitted to participate in the selection by treating them to be within age; however, petitioners were not successful and therefore subsequent writ petitions filed by them are not maintainable.

14. Per contra, Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that none of the petitioners, except Amita Wiliam, Hemlata and Anuranjita Sharma filed writ petition earlier, claiming benefit of age relaxation; writ petitions by

2025:UHC:8475 aforesaid three persons, namely, Amita Wiliam, Hemlata and Anuranjita Sharma were filed challenging advertisement dated 29.11.2023; since that advertisement was cancelled by the subsequent advertisement issued on 11.03.2024, therefore, the writ petitions filed by them were rendered infructuous. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that selection process was not initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 29.11.2023.

15. This Court finds substance in the said submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

16. Since the selection process could not be initiated in terms of advertisement issued on 29.11.2023, therefore, even if some of the petitioners had earlier filed writ petitions, claiming benefit of age relaxation pursuant to advertisement dated 29.11.2023, that itself will not disentitle them from filing another writ petition in respect of selection process initiated subsequently.

17. Mr. Gaurav Nagpal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate appearing for Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board concedes that the issue involved in these petitions is similar to the one decided in the said writ petition.

18. Since identical issue was considered and decided by coordinate Bench of this Court in WPSS No. 483 of 2024, therefore, these writ petitions are also decided in terms of the judgment dated 25.08.2025, rendered in Writ Petition No. 483 of 2024 (SS).

_______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

Dt: 22.09.2025 Mahinder

MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a 18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,

serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1 BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.09.26 19:44:06 +05'30' 2025:UHC:8475