Back
2018 Supreme(UK) 27
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Lok Pal Singh, J.
In the matter of appointments of activists on Group ‘C’ and Group ‘D’ posts under the Uttarakhand Rajya Andolan Ke Ghayal/Jail Gaye Andolankariyon Ki Sewayojan Niyamawali, 2010 - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011
Decided On : 07-03-2018
For the Petitioner:Mr. Arvind Vashistha, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae)
For the Respondent:Mr. S.N. Babulkar, Advocate General of the State assisted by Mr. Paresh Triapthi, Chief Standing Counsel and Anjali Bhargava
For the Interveners :Mr. M.S. Pal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Amir Malik, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Jain, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Siddhartha Jain, Advocate, M.C. Pant, Mr. Mahesh Chandra Pant, Advocates, Mr. Raman Kumar Shah, Advocate, intervener (in person)
The Circular Letters dated 11.08.2004 providing for one-time reservation in government service for those who participated in the Uttarakhand movement were found violative of Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India.
Headnote:
PIL - Appointment on Group 'D' post - Circular Letter no. 1269 of 2004, Circular Letter no. 1270 of 2004 - The Circular Letters dated 11.08.2004 provided for one-time reservation in government service for those who participated in the Uttarakhand movement. The Court found the Circular Letters violative of Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India and quashed them under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought appointment on a Group 'D' post under the Government Order dated 11.08.2004, which provided one-time reservation for those who participated in the Uttarakhand movement. The petitioner's application was rejected, leading to a writ petition. The Court dismissed the writ petition and quashed the appointment order issued in favor of another individual.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found the Circular Letters dated 11.08.2004 violative of Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India and exercised its suo moto power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Government Order. The Court also held that the Circular Letters were not government orders but circular letters issued by the Principal Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the Circular Letters dated 11.08.2004 providing for one-time reservation in government service for those who participated in the Uttarakhand movement.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the Circular Letters violated Articles 14 and 16 of The Constitution of India as they provided for a form of gratuitous or compassionate appointment, which was not based on any reasonable criteria and had no nexus with the objects sought to be achieved. The Court also found that the Circular Letters were not issued under any statutory provision and did not have statutory force.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed all consequential orders of the Government making appointments in pursuance of the Circular Letters, and set them aside.
Lok Pal Singh, J.
The appeal was heard at length by a Division Bench of this Court comprising Hon'ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. and Hon’ble U.C. Dhyani, J. Both the Hon'ble Judges, having difference of opinion, decided to deliver separate judgments instead of giving a common judgment. Due to difference of opinion among the members of the Division Bench, this matter has been referred to me, for my decision on the subject, by the order of Hon’ble the Chief Justice.
2. The genesis of this writ petition (P.I.L.) is an order dated 11.05.2010 rendered by His Lordship Tarun Agarwala, J. on the review application filed in WPSS No.945 of 2007.
3. In the backdrop, facts of the case are that a writ petition was filed by the petitioner Karunesh Joshi, being WPSS No.945 of 2007, seeking appointment on Group ‘D’ post, pursuant to the Government Order dated 11th August, 2004. By means of G.O. dated 11.08.2004, one time reservation in government service was given to those persons, who were either injured or who remained in jail for seven days or more during agitation for creation of new State, subject to their qualifications for the posts. This was one time reservation for Class III and Class IV posts in government service, which were outside the purview of the State Public Service Commission.
4. The State of Uttarakhand was carved out on 09.11.2000 from the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh. After creation of new State, the State Government, in order to acknowledge the contribution of the “andolankaris” (agitators), issued Government Order dated 11.08.2004. The G.O. dated 11.08.2004 further provided that those persons who are domicile of State of Uttarakhand and have participated in the Uttarakhand movement and have sustained injury during that movement and those who remained in jail for seven days or more, would be entitled for appointment in government service in the State of Uttarakhand. Thereafter, the District Magistrates of all the districts of Uttarakhand State were authorised by the Government of Uttarakhand to identify the injured who sustained injury in the Uttarakhand movement and those who remained in jail for seven days or more while participating in agitation for creation of new State. The District Magistrates were directed to prepare a list of persons who sustained injuries and those who remained in jail for seven days or more and Authorities were directed to issue such appointment on Group ‘C’ and Group ‘B’ posts to eligible persons as per their educational qualifications. The Government Order further stipulates that there would be relaxation in age in the selection process, as so many persons became overage, during agitation for creation of a separate State in the decade of 1990. On the basis of Government Order dated 11.08.2004, several lists were prepared by the concerned District Magistrates in the area of their jurisdiction and it was stated that several hundreds of people were given appointment pursuant to the Government Order dated 11.8.2004 in the last five years.
5. As far as petitioner Karunesh Joshi is concerned, he contented in the writ petition that he actively participated in the agitation for creation of new State of Uttarakhand and in incident of 19.09.1995 he sustained injury and remained under-treatment of a private doctor who certified that he was under the treatment. On the basis of this certificate, petitioner Karunesh Joshi applied for appointment on Class ‘D’ post, pursuant to G.O. dated 11.8.2004. His application was rejected by the concerned District Magistrate by order dated 18.5.2006. Thereafter, he made representation to the authority concerned, which was also rejected. Feeling aggrieved, he filed a writ petition before this Court. This Court, vide order dated 11.5.2010, after considering the plethora of judgments, dismissed the writ petitions. By the same judgment and order dated 11.5.2010, the Court also quashed the appointment order issued in favour of Narayan Singh Rana. Although, validity of th
