[Per : Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J.]

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

2. Since in both these writ petitions, common question of law is involved to be decided by this Court, therefore, both the petitions have been consolidated and are being decided by a common judgment. Writ Petition No. 84 of 2009 (S/B) shall be the leading case.

3. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued advertisement No. A-7/E-1/07-08 dated 21.04.2008 notifying 33 vacancies on the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division), out of which 5 were reserved for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste Category, who are residents of the Uttarakhand State. It was provided that horizontal reservation shall be applicable, as per relevant Government Orders. After having applied, the petitioners appeared for the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) in Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) Examination, 2008. The petitioners asserted that the petitioners were declared selected by virtue of select list issued by respondent no. 2. Mrs. Jyotsana as well as Ms. Shalini Dadar had obtained 489 marks in aggregate but Mrs. Jyotsana was placed higher in order of merit by virtue of the fact that she had obtained higher marks in the written examination.

4. Despite the fact that Mrs. Jyotsana’s name had appeared at serial No. 17 in the select list and vacancies were available but she not having been appointed by the State Govt., she filed Writ Petition No. 44 of 2009 in this Court, in which the following prayers were made :-

i. “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to include the name of petitioner in the Appointment Order No. 327/30.1.2009-25 (16) 2004 T.C.-1 Dehradun dated 19.3.2009 and to allocate here posting in pursuance to her selection for the post of Civil Judge (J.D.) in the examination of Civil Judge (J.D.) Examination of 2008.

ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent to take an appropriate action on the petitioner’s representation dated 17.3.2009 (annexure no. 12 to the writ petition).

iii. Issue a writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of the petition.”

5. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending in this Court an order came to be passed by the State Govt. on 25th April 2009. In this order making a reference to the Scheduled Caste certificate issued in Mrs. Jyotsana’s favour on 14th June 2002, State Govt. directed District Magistrtate, Bageshwar to constitute a scrutiny committee to find out as to whether the aforesaid certificate dated 14th June 2002 was correctly issued or not? The scrutiny committee upon an inquiry came to the conclusion that she should not be given the benefit of reservation in Scheduled Caste category based upon the aforesaid certificate dated 14th June 2002. The State Govt. accordingly came to the conclusion in the aforesaid order dated 25th April 2002 that it was in agreement with the report and finding of the scrutiny committee.

6. A subsequent, consequential order was passed by the State Govt. on 6th May 2009, in which after making a mention of the aforesaid fact, it took two decisions, firstly, that Mrs. Jyotsana was not entitled to the benefit of reservation as a Scheduled Caste candidate on the basis of the certificate dated 14th June 2002 and secondly to cancel the said certificate.

7. The aforesaid two orders were passed by the State Govt. on 25th April 2009 and 6th May 2009 respectively during the pendency of W.P. No. 44 of 2009 filed by Mrs. Jyotsana. W.P. No. 44 of 2009 came up for consideration in the Court on 8th May 2009 when the following order was passed :-

“As the arguments were in progress, Mr. Sharad Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw this petition, in the process the petitione