[Cites 3, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Praveen Tandon vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 18 February, 2026

2026:UHC:1095-DB

Judgement Pronounced on:18.02.2026
Judgement Reserved on:23.12.2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Naithani, J.

Hon'ble Mr. Subhash Upadhyay, J.

WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024

Praveen Tandon ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025

Anil Chandra Baluni ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents

With

WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025

Rajiv Gupta ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others .....Respondents

Presence:

Dr. Gyanendra Kumar Sharma, Ms. Indu Sharma and Ms. Harshi
Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioners in WPSB No.710 of 2024 and
learned counsel for the Intervener in WPPIL No. 70 of 2025).
Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, Mr. Rafat Munir and Ms. Irum Zeba, learned
counsel for the Petitioner in WPSB No. 295 of 2025.

1
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

Mr. S. N. Babulkar, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. C. S.
Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Abhijay Negi, Mr. Vinay Kumar, Ms. Snigdha Tiwari, and Mr.
Himanshu Pal, learned counsel for the Respondent No.3 in WPSB No.710
of 2024.
Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Mr. Amanpreet Singh Rahi and Mr. Shubham
Bharadwaj, learned counsel for the intervener.
Per: Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
1. These three writ petitions, namely WPSB No. 710 of 2024, WPPIL No.
70 of 2025 and WPSB No. 295 of 2025, arise out of a common issue
relating to the appointment of respondent no.3 to the post of Managing
Director of a State Corporation governed by the Selection and
Appointment of Managing Directors & Directors in the Three
Corporations Rules, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules, 2021").
2. Since the core issue involved in all three petitions is substantially
identical, they were heard together and are being decided by this
common judgment.
3. Brief facts of the case are as follows; the Rules, 2021 were framed by
the State Government to regulate the selection and appointment of
Managing Directors and Directors in three specified State Corporations.
The Rules prescribe eligibility conditions, educational qualifications,
experience requirements and procedural safeguards for appointment.
4. By amendment dated 28.05.2021, the Rules were modified, inter alia,
to prescribe specific educational qualifications for the post of Managing
Director. Under Rule 9 and Rule 9A, as amended, certain technical and
professional qualifications, including possession of an Engineering
Degree, were made part of the eligibility framework.
5. Subsequently, an advertisement was issued by the State Government
inviting applications for the post of Managing Director of the

2
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

concerned corporation. The advertisement reflected the qualifications
as provided under the amended Rules.
6. Respondent no.3 applied pursuant to the advertisement. After the
selection process, respondent no.3 came to be appointed as Managing
Director by order of the State Government.
7. WPSB No. 710 of 2024 was filed challenging the legality of the
appointment primarily on the ground that respondent no.3 did not fulfil
the mandatory educational qualification prescribed under Rule 9A of
the Rules, 2021.
8. During the course of proceedings, this Court called upon the State
Government to clarify whether any decision regarding "equivalence" in
terms of the proviso to Rule 9A(4) had been taken prior to the
appointment of respondent no.3, and if so, to place the same on record.
9. The Public Interest Litigation also questions whether the power of
exemption or equivalence under the proviso to Rule 9A(4) can be
exercised in an unguided manner, and whether such discretion must be
circumscribed by objective standards.
10. WPSB No. 295 of 2025 was filed by another petitioner asserting
individual grievance, contending that the appointment of respondent
no.3 is arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India, and contrary to the express mandate of the Rules, 2021.
11. In response to the writ petitions, the State Government filed its
counter-affidavit asserting that the appointment of respondent no.3 was
made in accordance with the Rules, 2021. It is stated that respondent
no.3 possesses substantial administrative and technical experience and
that the Government, in exercise of powers under the proviso to Rule
9A(4), treated the qualification of respondent no.3 as equivalent.

3
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

12. This Court also directed the Chief Secretary to file an affidavit
clarifying the understanding of Rule 9 and Rule 9A, and to state
whether the qualifications prescribed under Rule 9A were mandatory in
nature and whether any exemption or equivalence had been granted in
the case of respondent no.3.
13. The affidavits placed on record disclose that while the State
Government asserts the existence of discretion under the proviso, the
precise nature, timing and reasoning of the decision determining
equivalence form the central dispute in the present matters.
14. Thus, the foundational facts are not in serious dispute. The
controversy primarily centres around the interpretation of the statutory
Rules, the nature of the qualification prescribed, the scope of the
proviso to Rule 9A(4), and the legality of the appointment of
respondent no.3 in light thereof.
15. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
16. Learned counsel for the Petitioners submit that the appointment
of respondent no.3 is ex facie illegal, being contrary to the express
mandate of Rule 9 and Rule 9A of the Rules, 2021.
17. It is argued that by virtue of the amendment dated 28.05.2021,
the Rules clearly prescribe possession of an Engineering Degree as a
mandatory qualification for appointment to the post of Managing
Director. The language of the Rule, according to the petitioners, is
couched in mandatory terms and admits of no relaxation except in strict
compliance with the proviso.
18. Learned counsel contend that eligibility conditions prescribed in
statutory rules have the force of law and cannot be diluted by executive
discretion. Once the Rules prescribe a qualification, neither the
advertisement nor the Government can override it.

4
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

19. It is further submitted that respondent no.3 does not possess the
Engineering Degree required under Rule 9A and was therefore
ineligible for consideration at the threshold. It is further submitted that
eligibility constitutes a threshold requirement and cannot be substituted
by considerations of suitability, experience or administrative
competence.
20. With regard to the proviso to Rule 9A(4), it is argued that the
proviso permits consideration of "equivalent qualification", but
equivalence cannot be presumed or inferred post facto. It must be:
(i) Based on objective criteria, and
(ii) Recorded by a reasoned decision.
21. The petitioners submit that no such determination of equivalence
exists on record. It is contended that the determination of equivalence,
if any, must necessarily precede the selection and appointment process,
and cannot be retrospectively invoked to validate an otherwise
ineligible candidature.
22. Learned counsel submit that the proviso cannot be used as a tool
to bypass mandatory qualifications. A proviso must be construed
narrowly and cannot override the substantive provision.
23. It is also contended that if equivalence is to be determined, the
same must be done by an appropriate expert body and not merely by
executive assertion.
24. The petitioners further argue that allowing such appointments
would render statutory qualifications illusory and defeat the object of
the Rules, 2021, which were framed precisely to ensure professional
competence and transparency in appointments to key public posts.

5
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

25. It is submitted that the appointment violates Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India, as similarly placed eligible candidates were
denied equal opportunity when an ineligible candidate was appointed.
26. Learned counsel appearing in the Public Interest Litigation
submit that the issue involved transcends individual grievance and
concerns the integrity of public institutions.
27. It is contended that Managing Director of a State Corporation
holds a position of significant public responsibility involving financial,
administrative and technical decision-making affecting public
resources.
28. Learned counsel submit that statutory qualifications are
introduced to ensure minimum professional competence and cannot be
treated as decorative or directory provisions.
29. It is argued that if equivalence or exemption can be invoked in an
unguided manner, the entire rule-based framework collapses and
appointments become vulnerable to arbitrariness.
30. The petitioner in PIL further submits that discretion under the
proviso must be exercised in accordance with well-defined principles,
and the absence of objective guidelines renders the exercise arbitrary.
31. It is also contended that in matters of public appointment,
transparency is a constitutional requirement flowing from Article 14.
Any relaxation of qualification must be demonstrably justified and
recorded.
32. Learned counsel emphasise that judicial review in such cases is
not about substituting executive wisdom but about ensuring fidelity to
statutory prescription.
33. Learned Advocate General and learned Chief Standing Counsel
appearing for the State submit that the appointment of respondent no.3

6
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

was made after due deliberation and in accordance with the Rules,
2021.
34. It is argued that Rule 9A(4) expressly contains a proviso
empowering the State Government to consider equivalence of
qualifications. The existence of such a proviso indicates legislative
intent to confer flexibility. It is submitted that the proviso is enabling in
nature and intended to provide reasonable latitude to the State in
assessing equivalent competence, and therefore cannot be construed in
a rigid or restrictive manner.
35. Learned counsel for the state submit that strict literal
interpretation would defeat the object of the Rule, which is to appoint
competent and experienced professionals.
36. It is contended that respondent no.3 possesses extensive
experience in the relevant sector and that practical experience may, in
appropriate cases, be treated as equivalent to formal technical
qualification.
37. Learned counsel for the State submits that the decision to treat
respondent no.3 as eligible falls within executive domain and is not
amenable to microscopic judicial scrutiny unless shown to be mala fide
or perverse.
38. It is further argued that courts have consistently held that judicial
review in matters of appointment is limited to examining the decision-
making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is further
submitted that judicial interference is warranted only where the
decision is demonstrably arbitrary, irrational, or contrary to statutory
prescription.
39. Learned counsel for the State also contends that the petitioners
cannot insist upon a hyper-technical interpretation of the Rules where

7
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

the larger objective of ensuring effective administration has been
served.
40. It is submitted that the proviso would become otiose if interpreted
in the restrictive manner suggested by the petitioners.
41. Learned senior counsel for respondent no.3 adopt the
submissions of the State and further contend that the writ petitions are
motivated and lack bona fides.
42. It is argued that respondent no.3 was selected after due
consideration and possesses qualifications and experience that
substantially satisfy the requirements of the post.
43. Learned counsel for respondent no.3 submit that equivalence
does not require identity of degree but substantial similarity in
competence and expertise.
44. It is further contended that the Rules do not mandate consultation
with any particular expert body for determining equivalence and that
the State Government is competent to take such decision.
45. It is argued that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioners
and that the appointment has already been acted upon. Interference at
this stage would disrupt administrative functioning.
46. It is finally submitted that unless the petitioners establish
violation of a mandatory provision in a clear and demonstrable manner,
the Court ought not to invalidate the appointment

47. At the outset, it is necessary to delineate the scope of judicial
review in matters of appointment to public office. The Court does not
sit as an appellate authority over executive decisions, nor does it
reassess comparative merit or substitute its own view for that of the
appointing authority. Questions of administrative wisdom, evaluation

8
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

of experience, and choice between candidates ordinarily lie within the
executive domain.
48. The present case, however, concerns an appointment governed by
the Selection and Appointment of Managing Directors and Directors in
the Three Corporations Rules, 2021. Where an appointment is regulated
by statute, the executive must act strictly within the statutory
framework. Judicial review in such cases is confined to ensuring
compliance with the governing Rules.
49. The distinction between suitability and eligibility is fundamental.
While suitability involves subjective assessment of merit, eligibility
pertains to objective statutory conditions. The Court may not examine
who is the better candidate, but it must examine whether the
appointee was legally eligible to be considered.
50. Eligibility constitutes a jurisdictional fact. If the foundational
statutory requirement is absent, the exercise of power is rendered ultra
vires, irrespective of the merits of the decision. Such requirement must
be demonstrable from the record and cannot be supplied by subsequent
justification.
51. The controversy, therefore, is limited yet significant. The Court is
not concerned with the competence of respondent no. 3, nor with
comparative merit, but with whether the appointment conforms to Rule
9 and Rule 9A of the Rules, 2021.
52. The petitioners contend that the educational qualification
prescribed under Rule 9A is a mandatory condition and that respondent
no. 3 lacked such qualification. It is further urged that no lawful
determination of equivalence existed at the relevant time. The State, on
the other hand, asserts that the proviso permits flexibility and that

9
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

respondent no. 3 was rightly treated as possessing an equivalent
qualification.
53. The issue thus turns on the interpretation of Rule 9A and the
legality of its application. The central question is whether the
appointment satisfies the statutory eligibility requirement, either
directly or through a valid invocation of the proviso. The Court now
proceeds to examine the nature and effect of the qualification
prescribed under Rule 9A.
54. Having identified the core issue, the Court must now examine the
nature of the educational qualification prescribed under Rule 9A of the
Rules, 2021. If the qualification is mandatory, any departure must find
a clear sanction within the statutory framework. Judicial review in this
sphere remains limited to cases of arbitrariness or breach of statutory
prescription.
55. Rule 9A, as amended, prescribes specific educational
qualifications for appointment as Managing Director. The
language employed is clear and affirmative, laying down a
minimum threshold of eligibility rather than a matter of
preference. It thus establishes an objective condition precedent to
the exercise of discretion.
56. Ordinarily, where statutory rules prescribe qualifications for
public office, such prescription is treated as mandatory unless the
scheme indicates otherwise. The purpose of incorporating
educational qualifications is to ensure objectivity, minimum
competence, and protection against arbitrary selection. If such
requirement were treated as merely directory, the discipline of
statutory governance would stand diluted.

10
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

57. In the present case, Rule 9A requires possession of an
Engineering Degree. The Rule does not employ expressions suggestive
of flexibility. On a plain reading, therefore, the qualification operates as
a condition of eligibility.
58. The Rules, however, contain a proviso to Rule 9A(4), permitting
consideration of equivalence. The presence of the proviso indicates
limited flexibility, but it does not render the main qualification
directory. The eligibility condition remains mandatory, subject only to
lawful invocation of the proviso.
59. The controversy thus narrows to the scope and operation of the
proviso. A proviso cannot override the main provision; it carves out a
limited exception. Equivalence cannot amount to exemption. It must
relate to the substance of the prescribed qualification and cannot
operate as a device to dispense with the requirement altogether.
60. The determination of equivalence is an exercise of discretion, but
such discretion must be structured, reasoned, and demonstrable from
the record at the time of appointment. Subsequent explanations cannot
cure the absence of statutory compliance.
61. While this Court does not sit in appeal over an administrative
assessment, it must be satisfied that the proviso was consciously and
lawfully invoked on relevant material. A bare assertion of equivalence
is insufficient.
62. In the present case, though the State asserts that respondent no. 3
was treated as possessing an equivalent qualification, the critical
question is whether the record discloses a reasoned decision invoking
the proviso to Rule 9A(4) as part of the appointment process.
63. Experience and administrative competence, however valuable,
cannot substitute a statutory qualification unless the Rules permit such

11
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

substitution through a legally sustainable mechanism. The proviso
recognises equivalence, not exemption. The Court must therefore
examine whether the invocation of equivalence in the present case
satisfies the statutory discipline embodied in Rule 9A.
64. Continuing the above discussion, the Court is conscious that the
proviso to Rule 9A(4) embodies necessary administrative flexibility. It
is not redundant and must be given effect where genuine equivalence
exists. Yet, such flexibility must operate within the discipline of law.
Discretion affecting statutory eligibility must be traceable to the record;
otherwise, judicial review cannot meaningfully assess compliance.
65. The central inquiry, therefore, is whether the requirement under
Rule 9A stood lawfully satisfied through a valid invocation of the
proviso. In the absence of material disclosing a conscious and
identifiable decision invoking Rule 9A(4) during the appointment
process, the eligibility condition cannot be treated as fulfilled.
66. The matter, however, does not rest at the statutory level alone.
State action in public appointments must also conform to the
constitutional guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness under
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
67. Article 14 forbids arbitrariness in State action. Discretion must be
structured, reasoned, and founded on discernible material. Likewise,
Article 16 ensures a level playing field in public employment. Where
statutory qualifications are prescribed, all prospective candidates are
entitled to expect adherence to that norm.
68. If a departure from the prescribed qualification is made without a
demonstrable and reasoned invocation of the proviso, the process risks
arbitrariness and unequal treatment. Experience and competence,

12
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

however valuable, cannot replace a statutory qualification unless the
Rules themselves permit such substitution through a lawful mechanism.
69. This Court is not examining the sufficiency of the Government's
satisfaction on equivalence, but only whether the record reflects any
identifiable exercise of discretion under the proviso. In the present case,
though such discretion is asserted, the material placed on record does
not disclose a reasoned invocation of Rule 9A(4).
70. Legality must be judged on the basis of the record as it existed at
the time of appointment. Post facto explanation cannot cure absence of
statutory compliance. In the absence of demonstrable satisfaction of the
eligibility requirement, the appointment cannot be insulated from
judicial scrutiny.
71. The Court is conscious that interference with an appointment
already acted upon is not to be undertaken lightly. Stability of
administration is an important consideration. Nevertheless, where a
statutory mandate is shown to have been departed from without lawful
justification, the Court cannot decline to enforce the discipline of law.
Judicial restraint does not extend to condoning illegality.
72. The Court must therefore determine the appropriate legal
consequence of this infirmity, bearing in mind the statutory framework,
the constitutional mandate, and the necessity of maintaining both
legality and institutional stability.
73. In the present case, the absence of a demonstrable and reasoned
invocation of the proviso to Rule 9A(4) strikes at the root of statutory
eligibility. Eligibility being a condition precedent to appointment, its
absence renders the exercise of power ultra vires. The defect is not
procedural but foundational. Once the statutory mandate is not shown
to have been complied with on the record, considerations of

13
WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and
others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand
and others
Ashish Naithani J.
2026:UHC:1095-DB

administrative convenience or experience cannot sustain the
appointment. The discipline of statutory governance, reinforced by
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, leaves no room for
sustaining an appointment made in derogation of the prescribed
qualification.
74. In view of the finding that the appointment itself is not in
conformity with Rule 9A of the Rules, 2021, the ancillary challenges
relating to extension of tenure, continuance as Director (HR), and
holding of additional charge do not survive for independent
adjudication and are rendered academic.

ORDER

In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court holds that the educational qualification prescribed under Rule 9A of the Selection and Appointment of Managing Directors & Directors in the Three Corporations Rules, 2021 is a mandatory condition of eligibility, subject to the proviso contained therein. The material placed on record does not disclose a lawful and reasoned invocation of the proviso to Rule 9A(4) during the selection process. The appointment is, therefore, not in conformity with the statutory framework and is legally unsustainable.

Accordingly, the appointment of respondent no. 3 to the post of Managing Director is set aside. The State Government is at liberty to reconsider the matter strictly in accordance with the Rules, 2021. If the proviso to Rule 9A(4) is sought to be invoked, the determination of equivalence shall be made on objective material forming part of the decision-making record. Such exercise shall be completed within eight weeks.

WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 710 of 2024 ---Praveen Tandon v. State of Uttarakhand and others with WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 70 of 2025---Anil Chandra Baluni v. State of Uttarakhand and others with WRIT PETITION (SERVICE BENCH) No. 295 of 2025----Rajiv Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and others Ashish Naithani J.

2026:UHC:1095-DB

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the comparative merit, competence or suitability of respondent no. 3. Till a fresh decision is taken, the State may make an interim arrangement in accordance with law.

WPSB No. 710 of 2024, WPPIL No. 70 of 2025 and WPSB No. 295 of 2025 stand allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.

Hon'ble J. Ashish Naithani

Hon'ble J. Subhash Upadhyay

Dated:18.02.2026