The High Court must frame substantial questions of law in second appeals; failure to do so, along with improper service, constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

JUDGMENT :

B.V. NAGARATHNA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 05.01.2021 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand in MCC No. 12090 of 2021 by which the application seeking recall of the order dated 11.10.2019 (passed in Review Application No. 708/2019 which was filed in S.A. No. 140/2016 which appeal was allowed by order dated 01.07.2019) was rejected, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are as under. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in terms of their status and position before the Trial Court while narrating the facts. However, they have also been referred to as appellant (defendant no. 3); respondent no. 1 (plaintiff); respondent no. 2 (defendant no. 1); respondent no. 3 (Union of India) and, respondent no. 4 (Tehsildar).

The plaintiff is stated to be a permanent resident of Village Fakarhedi, Tejupur. Defendant No. 1, through a daily newspaper Amar Ujala dated 21.01.2011 invited applications for the appointment of a Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG distributor for Village Chudiyala, Tejupur, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar, in the State of Uttarakhand. The application stated that the applicants who met the conditions mentioned in the advertisement could submit their applications by 23.02.2011. The eligibility criteria for the appointment of a Rajiv Gandhi Rural LPG distributor were outlined in paragraph 4 of the advertisement. According to Condition No. 4(Kha), the applicant must: 1. be a permanent resident of the notified Nyaya Panchayat of Chudiyala, Village Tejupur; 2. be an Indian citizen; 3. have completed at least 10th - grade education; 4. fulfill norms for multiple dealerships/ distributorships; and 5. possess a 20 x 24-meter plot of land in their ownership, suitable for construction as per RGGLV Cylinder rules.

4. The plaintiff contended that Defendant No. 3, who is neither a resident of the notified village nor the Nyaya Panchayat, was appointed despite being a permanent resident of Village Sherpur, Shahpur, District Saharanpur, in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The plaintiff alleged that the appointment of Defendant No. 3 was made on the basis of an illegal and fake domicile certificate. On 17.11.2011, the plaintiff raised objections to Defendant No. 1 claiming that the domicile certificate submitted by Defendant No. 3 was fraudulent. In support of his arguments, the plaintiff produced a document obtained from the Tehsildar of Roorkee confirming that no domicile certificate had been issued to Defendant No. 3 by that office. It is alleged that despite this, Defendant No. 1 ignored the objection and appointed Defendant No. 3 as the gas distributor.

5. The plaintiff further averred that the plaintiff had fulfilled all the eligibility criteria set by Defendant Nos.1 and 2 for the appointment of a gas distributor but was not considered for the position. The plaintiff submitted an application with evidence to Defendant No. 1 on 17.11.2011, requesting the cancellation of Defendant No. 3's appointment.

6. It was further averred that under the Right to Information Act, the plaintiff sought information about the domicile certificate of Defendant No. 3. On 17.02.2012, the Nayab Tehsildar of Roorkee, acting as the Public Information Officer, confirmed that no such domicile certificate had been issued by Tehsil Roorkee. However, Defendant No. 1 rejected the plaintiff's application on 25.08.2011 on the grounds that the plaintiff did not reside in the notified area and that the plaintiff did not own land in the notified area. In this regard, the plaintiff stated that all necessary documentary evidence was submitted to Defendant No. 1.

7. The plaintiff initially filed Writ Petition No. 714 of 2012 titled Jaydeep vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others before the High Court of Uttarakhand. The writ petition was disposed of on 24.04.2012 whereby the High Court directed the plaintiff to approach the appropriate forum for relief as the case involved questions of fa