(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta)
2025, "Prakash Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & others".
2. Special Appeal Nos.423 of 2025 and 433 of 2025
3. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed the
4. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of the instant
05.11.2023. Based on the same, on 21.12.2023, the
document verification, in which the name of the
petitioner also figured. During document verification, it
i.e. Forest Department, Agriculture Department and
trade. The Service Rules in respect of Minor Irrigation
preferences in all the departments. Hence, the
sought clarification. In response to the same, the Urban
Assistantship. The Minor Irrigation Department and
respectively. Based on the clarification provided by the
selection process and issued the final select list.
5. It is noteworthy that at the stage of document
vacancies (i.e. about three times), the cut-off marks for the
Draftsmanship was 112.9442. The petitioner who had scored
verification. At the final stage, the cut-off for the general
than 141.3782, the marks of the petitioner. Consequently,
the petitioner's name did not find place in the final select list.
Petitioner's contention before the Writ Court.
6. The petitioner's contention in the writ petition was
departments. The petitioner also contended that in respect of
specific qualification, i.e. Diploma/ ITI certificate in
prescribed under the Rules. There was, consequently, no
7. In respect of Minor Irrigation Department and
and the requirements of the job. The clarification given by
8. On 18.02.2025, direction was issued to the
draftsmanship. Appointments in pursuance of the select list
was also kept in abeyance. The relevant direction, as
13. Till further orders pursuant to the impugned select list
no appointment letter shall be issued."
9. Pursuant to the above direction, an affidavit was
filed by the Commission and therein, it explained the
circumstances, in which, it sought clarification from the
concerned departments. Paragraph Nos.6 to 11 of the said
affidavit, which are relevant to the controversy, are extracted
below for ease of reference.
"6. That according to the requisition and advertisement, as
per the relevant service rules: In the three departments i.e. (i) The
Forest Department, (ii) Agriculture Department and (iii) Culture
Department require a Diploma in Civil Engineering as an education
qualification but the Urban Development Department specifies
Diploma/ ITI Certificate in the relevant trade as a mandatory
qualification. Similarly, the Minor Irrigation Department also
requires a qualification equivalent to the mandatory diploma. The
Public Works Department mentions an equivalent diploma as the
required qualification. During document verification, it was
observed that most of the candidates who had cleared the cut-off
in the document verification list held Diplomas in Civil Engineering
have marked their preferences in all the departments. It was
hence, to determine equivalent educational qualification for the
Urban Development Department, Minor Irrigation Department and
Public Works Department, a letter was sent to these departments
on January 5, 2024, but the Commission. The letter inquired
whether candidates holding a Diploma in Civil Engineering,
Draftsmanship (Cartography), or Architectural Assistantship
(similar to other departments) could be considered eligible for
these positions. The true copy of the letter dated 05.01.2024 is
annexed herewith as Annexure CA 2.
7. That in response thereto the Urban Development
Department vide letter No.479 dated May 1, 2024 clarified that
under Rule 08(3), Clause 02 of the Uttarakhand Municipal
(Decentralized) Employee Service (Group 'C') Rules 2017, the term
"Diploma/ ITI Certificate in the relevant trade" refers to: Diploma
in Civil Engineering, Diploma/ Certificate in Draftsmanship
(Cartography), Diploma/ Certificate in Architectural Assistantship.
The true copy of the letter dated 01.05.2024 is annexed herewith
as Annexure CA 3.
8. That vide its Letter No.1809 dated February 21, 2024 the
Minor Irrigation Department clarified regarding equivalent
recognized certificates that in other engineering departments, the
service rules for the Draftsman cadre include qualification such as
Diploma in Civil Engineering, Diploma/ Certificate in
Draftsmanship, or Diploma/ Certificate in Architectural
Assistantship. Therefore, if the Uttarakhand Public Service
Commission proceeds with further action based on similar
qualifications, the department has no objections. The true copy of
the letter dated 21.02.2024 is annexed a Annexure CA 4.
9. That vide Letter No.122 dated February 24, 2024 the
Public Works Department conveyed that the Secretary of the
Uttarakhand Technical Education Board, Roorkee, Haridwar, in a
letter dated February 22, 2024, confirmed that for the post of
Cartographer under the Public Works Department, point B (i), (ii) &
(iii) mentions the mandatory educational qualifications i.e. diploma
from a recognized institute or an equivalent diploma from any
other institute would also consider the candidates with Diploma in
Civil Engineering, Certificate in Draftsmanship, or Diploma/
Certificate in Architectural Assistantship as eligible for the post of
Cartographer under the mandatory educational qualifications. The
true copy of the letter dated 24.02.2024 is annexed as Annexure
CA 5.
10. That it is also noteworthy that there was no
representative from Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in the
committee constituted by the government/ department to
determine equivalence. Based on the report provided by the
government/ department regarding the equivalent qualifications,
the answering respondent carried out the selection process in
terms of the educational qualifications of the candidates and the
departmental priority, in the order of merit/ excellence. Therefore,
the selection process by the Commission has been conducted very
fairly and in accordance with rules.
11. That the interim order dated 18.02.2025 passed by this
Hon'ble Court mentions that the selection process was complete
with the document verification list issued on 21.12.2023, and the
cut-off marks of document verification list dated 21.12.2023 was
changed in the final selection result dated 08.01.2025. It is
clarified that the above-mentioned observation by the Hon'ble High
Court is not factually correct as the document verification list
issued by the Commission on 21.12.2023 was not the final
selection result but contained the list of almost thrice (225) the
number of vacancies (77). The answering respondent follows the
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Examination Result
Preparation Procedure Rules-2022. As per these rules a document
verification list of twice/ thrice number of candidates is issued
based on the category-wise/ subcategory-wise number of vacant
positions before issuing the final selection result. This list is issued
by the Confidential Section (Gopan Anubhag) of the answering
respondent in which no marks of any candidate is being reflected
at the time of issuing the list for document verification, also the
marks of the candidates are kept secret and the cut off marks are
released on the basis of the said list. The document verification is
being done by a separate section of the answering respondent than
that of Confidential Section (Gopan Anubhag) and both these
sections have absolutely no concern with the each other. The
document verification list was issued on 21.12.2023, and the cut-
off marks issued were based on that list which contained the list of
225 candidates. It is also noteworthy that if the number of eligible
candidates during document verification is less than the number of
vacancies, a new document verification is issued. In the present
case, 98 candidates who appeared in the first document
verification were selected in the junior engineer examination, and
affidavits were sent by them regarding the cancellation of the
candidature for the concerned posts. In this regard, the
candidature of the 98 candidates was cancelled, and a
supplementary document verification list was issued on 09.1.2024.
The cut-off marks were then re-determined based on that list. Due
to the higher number of candidates being absent in the
supplementary document verification, a further supplementary list
was issued on 28.11.2024, and the cut-off marks were again re-
determined. After this, the final selection result was declared on
08.01.2025, based on the merit list derived from the written exam
marks of the eligible candidates. It should also be clarified that as
the number of candidates in the document verification list is higher
than the number of vacancies, the cut-off of final selection result is
always different from the cut-off pertaining to document
verification list. Therefore, the observation of this Hon'ble Court's
order dated 18.02.2025, stating that the cut-off of 21.12.2023 was
changed to the final selection result of 08.01.2025 is factually
wrong. Thus, it is clear from the above that before issuing the
final selection result, the Commission communicated with the
government/ department regarding all equivalent qualifications,
and based on the information provided by the government/
department, the selection process was conducted in accordance
with the rules."
10. On 17.03.2025, the appellants in Special Appeal
Nos.423 of 2025 and 433 of 2025 and some other selected
candidates applied for their impleadment in the writ petition.
On 18.03.2025, the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development
Department filed a counter-affidavit stating that in pursuance
of the letter of the Commission dated 05.01.2024, the
Director, Urban Development Department vide his letter
dated 11.01.2024, sought clarification from the State
Government. On 02.04.2024, a meeting under the
Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Urban Development
Department, Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel and
Vigilance, Uttarakhand Government and Additional Director,
Urban Development Directorate, Uttarakhand was held. The
Committee deliberated over the issue and resolved that the
phrase 'Diploma/ ITI certificate in concerned trade' under
Rule 8(3) of the Uttarakhand Palika (Non-Centralized)
Employee Service (Group 'C') Rules, 2017 would mean
'Diploma in Civil Engineering or Diploma/ Certificate in
Draftsman (Manchitrakar) or Diploma/ Certificate in
Architectural Assistant. The recommendation of the
Committee was thereafter communicated to the Commission
by the Directorate, Urban Development Department vide
letter dated 01.05.2024, together with a copy of the minutes
of the meeting dated 02.04.2024.
11. On 01.09.2025, the learned Single Judge passed a
detailed order accepting the contention of the petitioner that
the 'concerned trade' in the Service Rules of Urban
Development Department would mean Draftsman and no
other trade. The word 'concerned trade' is only related to the
post on which recruitment is to be made and since the
recruitment in question was for the post of Draftsman, the
concerned trade could only be Draftsman. Therefore, there
was no occasion for the Commission to seek any clarification
with reference to essential qualification for the post of
Draftsman in the Urban Development Department. For
coming to the said conclusion, learned Single Judge has
placed reliance on the case of the Supreme Court in Zahoor
Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh Intiyaz Ahmad
and other and connected case, (2019) 2 SCC 404,
particularly, Paragraph No.27 thereof. The relevant findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge in this behalf, in respect
of Urban Development Department, are extracted below:-
"15. In the instant case, in so far as Urban Development
Department is concerned, the education qualification is
Intermediate (10+2) from a Board/ Institution recognized by the
Central or State Government and Diploma/ ITI Certificate in the
concerned Trade from an Institution recognized by the Central or
State Government. This qualification is "THE" qualification for the
post. No equivalent qualification has been given for this post.
16. It is being argued on behalf of the Commission that one
of the essential qualifications for appointment of Draughtsman in
the Urban Development Department is Diploma/ ITI Certificate in
the concerned Trade. Pressing upon the word 'concerned' it is
argued that it was sought to be clarified by the Government that
what does this work 'concerned' mean. This argument has less
merits for acceptance. The essential qualification does not speak
of any equivalence. The word 'concerned' is only related to the
post on which recruitment is to be made and that post is
Draughtsman. At the cost of repetition, this Court reiterates that
the word 'concerned' relates to 'Draughtsman' and to no other. As
stated, there is no equivalence. Therefore, this court is of the view
that the respondent Commission has no occasion to seek any
clarification in so far as essential qualification for recruitment of
Draughtsman in the Urban Development Department is
concerned."
12. In relation to Minor Irrigation Department and
Public Works Department, the learned Single Judge did not
find fault in the action of the Commission in seeking
clarification from the departments regarding equivalency as
the Service Rules provides for the same. However, the
learned Single Judge held that equivalency is the domain of
experts, who have to take decision based on proper
assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic
standards and practical attainments of such qualification. For
the said purpose, reliance has been placed on the judgment
of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shujat Ali and others vs.
Union of India and others and connected matter,
(1975) 3 SCC 76. The learned Single Judge, after holding
that equivalency in qualification communicated by the afore-
said departments to the Commission was based merely on
recommendations of its own officers and not on opinion of
any expert body, itself provided to constitute a Committee
comprising of the following persons to examine the question
of equivalency of qualification in respect of the post of
Draftsman in the Department of Minor Irrigation and Public
Works:-
"1) Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department, Minor Irrigation
Department, Uttarakhand.
2) Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department, Public Works
Department, Uttarakhand.
3) Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee,
Roorkee, District Haridwar.
4) One Expert of Uttarakhand Technical Education Council
Roorkee, District Haridwar, as may be nominated by its
Secretary.
5) An official of the Commission, as may be nominated by its
Secretary, who shall convene the meeting of this expert
body."
13. In pursuance of the said direction, the Committee
examined the matter and submitted its report to the
Commission. The same was brought on record by the
Commission along with an affidavit dated 23.09.2025 and the
said Committee also recommended for treating diploma
holders in Civil Engineering and Architectural Assistant as
equivalent to the prescribed qualification, i.e. Certificate of
Draftsmanship.
14. On 04.12.2025, the learned Single Judge decided
the writ petition finally. The learned Single Judge held that
the issue in respect of Urban Development Department as to
whether Diploma/ ITI certificate in any trade other than
Draftsman could be recognized had attained finality by order
dated 01.09.2025 and, therefore, declined to re-examine the
same. In respect of Minor Irrigation Department and Public
Works Department, the Court repelled the challenge
advanced by the petitioner as the Committee of experts
constituted by it had also opined that Diploma in Civil
Engineering, Diploma/ Certificate in Draftsman, and Diploma/
Certificate in Architectural Assistant, would be equivalent
qualification to the prescribed qualification stipulated under
the relevant service rules. Accordingly, the writ petition has
been partly allowed and only in respect of Urban
Development Department, direction was issued to recast the
final select list by including only the candidates who have
Diploma/ ITI Certificate in Draftsmanship.
15. The questions which arise for consideration are,
whether the expression 'concerned trade' in the Service Rules
of the Urban Development Department admits of any
clarification by the employer; whether such clarification
amounts to alteration of the eligibility conditions; whether the
learned Single Judge was justified in restricting the eligibility
to Draftsman trade; whether the department was competent
to make clarification itself or it could have been done only
after referring the issue of equivalence to expert committee,
and; whether the clarification given by the Department
amounts to change of rules of the game during the progress
of selection process.
16. The essential qualification for the post of Draftsman
in respective departments as per the advertisement is as
follow:-
Sl. Department Essential Qualifications as per
No. Advertisement
1. Forest Department A candidate for direct recruitment to a
(Cartographer) post in the service must possess a
certificate of Draftsmanship or a
Diploma in Civil Engineering from a
recognized University or Institution.
2. Minor Irrigation Department High School Examination from
(Draftsman) U.P./Uttarakhand Board of Secondary
Education or any other equivalent
examination recognized by the
government. Cartography Certificate
from U.P./Uttarakhand State Council
for Technical Education or any other
government- recognized
equivalent certificate.
3. Public Works Department (a) Must have passed the High School
(Cartographer) Examination conducted by the
Uttarakhand Board of Secondary
Education or any other equivalent
examination recognized by the
government.
(b) Certificate of passing any of the
following examinations or courses:
1. Diploma in Draftsman from a
Polytechnic Institute recognized by
the Uttarakhand Board of Technical
Education or an equivalent diploma
from any other recognized institute in
Uttarakhand or any other State.
2. Diploma in Draftsmanship from an
Industrial Training Institute (ITI)
recognized by the Directorate of
Training & Employment, Uttarakhand,
or an equivalent diploma from any
other recognized institute in
Uttarakhand or any other State.
3. Diploma in Draftsmanship or an
equivalent degree awarded by a
University established by the law in
India.
4. Urban Development 1. Intermediate (10+2) from a
board/institution recognized by the
Central or State Government.
2. Diploma/ITI Certificate in the
Concerned Trade from an institution
recognized by the Central or State
Government.
5. Agriculture Department a) High School Examination from the
(Cartographer) Uttarakhand Board of Secondary
Education or any other equivalent
examination recognized by the
government.
b) One of the following qualifications:
1. Certificate in Cartography from
Roorkee University.
2. Certificate in Cartography issued
by the Uttarakhand State Council for
Technical Education.
3. Three-year Cartography Certificate
from Banaras Hindu University.
4. Three-year Diploma in Architectural
Assistance from Government Art
College, Lucknow.
5. Three-year Diploma in Civil
Engineering from Uttarakhand State
Council for Technical Education.
6. Diploma in Civil Engineering from
any government-recognized.
7. Cartography Certificate issued by
the National Council for Vocational
Training (NCVT), Ministry of Labour &
Employment, Government of India.
8. Two-and-a-half-year Cartography
Certificate from Aligarh Muslim
University.
6. Culture Department 1. Must have passed the High School
(Cartographer) Examination from the Uttarakhand
Board of Secondary Education or any
other equivalent examination
recognized by the government.
2. Certificate or Diploma or any
degree in Civil Engineering or
Draftsman (Civil) or Architectural
Assistantship from any institution
recognized by the government.
17. Although, the Commission held a combined
selection for six departments, but service rules of every
department are separate. The selection and appointment to
the post of Draftsman in Urban Development Department is
governed by the Uttarakhand Palika (Non-Centralized)
Employees Services (Group 'C') Rules, 2017 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules"). Rule 8(3) prescribes the essential
qualification for various posts, including the post of
Draftsman, which is as follows:-
(3) Draftsman 1. Intermediate from a Board/
Institution recognized by the Centre or
State Government.
2. Diploma in concerned Trade/ I.T.I.
Certificate from a Institution recognized
by the Centre or State Government.
18. Thus, the essential qualification, apart from
intermediate degree, is "Diploma in concerned trade/ ITI
certificate." The rule, thus, does not specify the trade, in
which, Diploma/ ITI certificate is required. In contrast, the
Service Rules of Forest Department, Culture Department and
Public Works Department specifies, inter alia, a Certificate of
Draftsman as one of the essential qualifications for the post.
Thus, the main issue is regarding interpretation of the
expression 'concerned trade' under the relevant Service Rules
in respect of Urban Development Department. The Service
Rule does not confine eligibility to a single specified trade. It
employs of broad and category based expression, namely,
'concerned trade', which is inherently referable to the
requirements of the post in the department concerned.
19. When the Commission noticed at the stage of
document verification where candidates more than two times
the number of vacancies were called that a large number of
candidates having Diploma/ ITI certificates in different trades
have also given preference for appointment, inter alia, in the
Urban Development Department, it sought clarification vide
its letter dated 05.01.2024 from the Urban Development
Department, which is the employer. The Urban Development
Department, being the employer, was aware of the nature of
duties attached to the post and the technical qualifications
required for its effective discharge. The Department
constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Principal
Secretary, Urban Development Department, Joint Secretary,
Department of Personnel and Vigilance, Uttarakhand
Government and Additional Director, Urban Development
Directorate, Uttarakhand, which deliberated over the issue
and, thereafter, clarified that qualifications such as Diploma in
Civil Engineering and Architectural Assistant would fall within
the ambit of 'concerned trade'. The clarification is not an
external addition to the eligibility condition, but an exposition
by the employer of the scope of the expression used in the
Service Rules and the advertisement.
20. Importantly, it is not a case where equivalence of
qualification was sought to be determined vis-à-vis specific
prescribed qualification in contrast to the Minor Irrigation
Department and Public Works Department. It is noteworthy
that in various other departments, there was specific mention
of Certificate of Draftsman as essential qualification, but in
the Service Rules governing the appointment to the post of
Draftsman in the Urban Development Department, the
Service Rules do not prescribe the Certificate of Draftsman,
but only speaks of 'concerned trade'. The inquiry, therefore,
was not for equivalence, but identification of what constituted
the 'concerned trade' for the post. In such a situation, in our
considered opinion, no expert body was required. The
employer-department was the best judge of the scope of
work and the qualification necessary therefor.
21. Here, it is worthwhile to observe that the post of
Draftsman in Urban Development Department involves not
only preparation of maps, but extends to preparation of
plans, layouts, and technical drawings requiring foundational
knowledge of Civil Engineering and Architectural principles
and, therefore, the Department being the employer, having
insight to the scope of work and nature of duties, was the
best judge to give clarification in respect of the 'concerned
trade', which would be relevant.
22. The principle that 'Rules of the Game' cannot be
changed midstream is not attracted to the facts of the instant
case inasmuch as there has been no alteration of the
eligibility conditions. What has been undertaken is only a
clarification of a open textured expression forming part of
service rules and the advertisement. Such clarification was
necessary to ensure a meaningful and workable selection
process and cannot be equated with changing the rules of the
game in midst of the selection process.
23. The learned Single Judge has placed much reliance
on Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra). In the said case, the
Supreme Court was dealing with the recruitment to the post
of Technician-III in the Power Development Department. The
post of Technician-III was created under a Government Order
dated 04.12.1996 and the qualification for that post was
"Matric with ITI". The qualification for the post of Junior
Engineer which was a higher post was BE (Electrical)/
Diploma (Electrical). In the advertisement dated 23.02.2013,
the prescribed qualification was stated as "Matric with ITI in
relevant trade". The advertisement contained a note to the
effect that mere possession of a higher qualification would not
entitle a candidate to be called for interview or to any
weightage unless so decided by the Board. During the course
of selection, the Board noticed inconsistency at the district
level. In some districts, candidates holding Diploma in
Electrical Engineering has been provisionally interviewed,
while in others, such diploma holders were treated as
ineligible. The matter was placed before the Board, and the
Board decided that only ITI in relevant trade, namely
Electrician, is to be considered as prescribed in the
advertisement. Thereafter, the final select list was issued in
which the diploma holders were excluded. The candidates
before the Supreme Court did not possess the ITI
qualification, but a higher qualification, namely, Diploma in
Electrical Engineering/ Electronic Engineering and since their
names were not included in the final select list, feeling
aggrieved, they approached the High Court. The learned
Single Judge in that case had taken a view that since Diploma
in Electrical Engineering was a higher qualification and
diploma holders could even be eligible for the higher post of
Junior Engineer, such candidates should not be excluded from
consideration for Technician-III. The matter was carried
forward in intra-court appeal and wherein, the judgment of
the learned Single Judge was reversed. What is significant in
the case of Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra) is the true ratio
of the decision. The Supreme Court did not hold as an
abstract proposition that expressions such as 'relevant trade'
or 'concerned trade' must always receive a narrow
construction. What the Supreme Court held was that the
employer or the recruiting agency which has prescribed the
qualification and has understood the relevant trade in a
particular manner should be respected. The Court cannot
enlarge the zone of eligibility by importing qualification, which
the employer has not accepted, as satisfying the prescription.
The Court also explained that Note 12 did not compel the
Board to treat higher qualifications as automatically satisfying
the basic eligibility requirement, it only conferred a discretion
to give weightage to higher qualifications among other
eligible candidates, if the Board so desired.
24. The distinction from the present case can,
therefore, be stated thus- in Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra),
the Board itself confined relevant trade to ITI Electrician and
excluded diploma holders, who lacked the mandatory ITI
qualification. The Supreme Court upheld that determination
and refused to substitute its own view merely because some
candidates possessed what they described as a higher
qualification. In the present case, however, the Urban
Development Department itself clarified that the 'concerned
trade' includes qualification, such as Diploma in Civil
Engineering and Architectural Assistant. Thus, unlike in
Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra) where the candidate was
seeking inclusion of a higher qualification through the Court
of Law, in the instant case, the employer itself has identified
the scope of the work required for the post and the Court is
being invited to narrow the determination made by the
employer.
25. Indeed, if the ratio in Zahoor Ahmed Rather
(supra) is correctly applied, it supports the appellants rather
than the writ petitioner. The principle flowing from that
judgment is one of deference to the employer's
understanding of the prescribed trade. In Zahoor Ahmed
Rather (supra) that understanding was restrictive. Here, the
employer's understanding is broader. In both situations, the
same rule applies, i.e. the Court ought not to substitute its
own construction for that of the employer, unless the
employer's view is shown to be arbitrary, malafide or contrary
to the governing rules. In the present case, no such
arbitrariness or malafide could be demonstrated.
26. Relying on the same ratio set out in Zahoor
Ahmed Rather (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench in "Manali
Chaudhary & others vs. State of Uttarakhand & others",
(Special Appeal No.285 of 2025), refused to interfere with the
clarification given by the employer- State that two year
diploma in Agriculture prescribed for recruitment to the posts
of Sugar Cane Supervisor, would include three year diploma,
as after high-school, the duration of diploma course is three
years.
27. It is evident that the Commission, upon finding the
necessity for clarification, sought the same from the
concerned departments at the stage well before the
preparation of the final select list. The minutes of the
meeting dated 21.12.2023 presided by the Chairman of the
Commission and three Members, wherein it was resolved to
seek clarification, form part of the record as Annexure SSA-2.
The mere inclusion of name of the petitioner at the stage of
document verification, where candidates more than two times
the number of vacancies were called did not confer any
indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner to claim
appointment. The clarification given by the Department has
been applied uniformly by the Commission, and the petitioner
has failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or discriminatory
action on part of the Commission in this regard.
28. Before parting, we take note of one more
submission on behalf of the writ petitioner. It was contended
that the order of the Single Judge dated 01.09.2025 holding
that no other qualification except Diploma/ ITI in Draftsman
would be admissible for the post of Urban Development
Department attained finality as it was not challenged at that
stage. The appellants cannot be permitted to reopen the
controversy by means of the present appeals. The argument
is specious and is to be rejected. Albeit, the order holds as
contended, but direction for revising the final result, on basis
of the said finding, which ultimately affected the appellants,
came to be issued while passing the final order. The order
passed on 01.09.2025, thus got merged with the final order
passed in the writ petition and while challenging the final
order, the validity of the order passed at the earlier stage of
the proceedings, i.e. 01.09.2025 can definitely be examined.
29. In view of the discussion made above, we are of
the firm opinion that judicial intervention by the Writ Court
was not needed and it has unnecessarily resulted in
derailment of the selection process.
30. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The
judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated
04.12.2025 is set-aside. Interim order is vacated. The
Commission is at liberty to proceed ahead and conclude the
selection process without any further delay.
31. There shall be no order as to costs.
32. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated: 01st April, 2026
NISHANT
NISHANT
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT
2.5.4.20=ad3fcb5ca64340f5dd0a4c574afa0fd63133605ca57cdc00
KUMAR
ec2b7462b452b326, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=7E81318F3B1BE7EAAC9370185F7C9C20892BC63A
055CFD1961690560487E670C, cn=NISHANT KUMAR
Date: 2026.04.01 10:53:14 +05'30'
