Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Vipin Sanghi, Ramesh Chandra Khulbe, JJ.
Ajay Dungrakoti - Petitioner
Vs.
Hon’ble High Court of Uttarakhand and another - Respondent
Writ Petition (S/B) No.35 Of 2021
Decided On : 22-08-2022
Appointment - Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services - 2019 - [APPOINTMENT] - [JUDICIAL SERVICES] - [Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services Act, 2019, Section 4(1)(a), Section 6(1)] - The court considered the denial of recommendation of the petitioner's name, simultaneously with the withdrawal/rejection of the recommendation made in favour of Mr. Rahul Singh, on 19.02.2020, which was without any disclosed reasons, and the said decision was unreasoned and irrational. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for recommendation by the High Court to the State Government for appointment against the general category seat in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service – 2019 vacancy. The High Court was directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner and, unless there is a good reason, which existed as on 19.02.2019 for not recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment against the aforesaid vacancy, his name should be recommended to the State of Uttarakhand for his appointment. If the name of the petitioner is recommended and the State of Uttarakhand grants appointment to the petitioner, his appointment shall relate back to the date on which he would normally have been appointed. The petitioner will be deemed to have been appointed from 01.04.2019, provided his appointment is not denied for any good and germane reason. In that eventuality, he will be entitled to notional seniority from such date. His pay shall also be fixed notionally from the said date. However, since he has not served, he shall not be entitled to claim any back wages. The High Court was also directed to work out the impact of the appointment that may be granted to the petitioner, on the vacancy position vis-à-vis the recruitment process initiated in the year 2022.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a mandamus to the High Court of Uttarakhand to consider his candidature and recommend his name to the State Government for appointment in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services-2019 against the vacant posts in the General Category. The High Court rejected the petitioner's representations without assigning any reason, leading to the present writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The denial of recommendation of the petitioner's name, simultaneously with the withdrawal/rejection of the recommendation made in favour of Mr. Rahul Singh, on 19.02.2020, was without any disclosed reasons, and the said decision was unreasoned and irrational. The court held that the petitioner was entitled to be considered for recommendation by the High Court to the State Government for appointment against the general category seat in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service – 2019 vacancy.
Issues: The main issue was the denial of recommendation of the petitioner's name for appointment against the general category seat in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Service – 2019 vacancy, and the rejection of the petitioner's representations without assigning any reason.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the denial of recommendation of the petitioner's name, simultaneously with the withdrawal/rejection of the recommendation made in favour of Mr. Rahul Singh, on 19.02.2020, was without any disclosed reasons, and the said decision was unreasoned and irrational. The court directed the High Court to consider the candidature of the petitioner and, unless there is a good reason, which existed as on 19.02.2019 for not recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment against the aforesaid vacancy, his name should be recommended to the State of Uttarakhand for his appointment.
Final Decision: The High Court was directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner and, unless there is a good reason, which existed as on 19.02.2019 for not recommending the name of the petitioner for appointment against the aforesaid vacancy, his name should be recommended to the State of Uttarakhand for his appointment. If the name of the petitioner is recommended and the State of Uttarakhand grants appointment to the petitioner, his appointment shall relate back to the date on which he would normally have been appointed. The petitioner will be deemed to have been appointed from 01.04.2019, provided his appointment is not denied for any good and germane reason. In that eventuality, he will be entitled to notional seniority from such date. His pay shall also be fixed notionally from the said date. However, since he has not served, he shall not be entitled to claim any back wages. The High Court was also directed to work out the impact of the appointment that may be granted to the petitioner, on the vacancy position vis-à-vis the recruitment process initiated in the year 2022.
JUDGMENT :
Vipin Sanghi, J.
The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the decision taken by the High Court of Uttrakhand-respondent no.1 as communicated by the communication dated 30.12.2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for recommending his name to the State Government for appointment in Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services-2019, against the vacant post in the General Category. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the High Court of Uttarakhand to consider his candidature and recommend his name to the State Government for appointment in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services-2019 against the vacant posts in the General Category.
2. On 10.04.2019, the High Court of Uttarakhand issued a notification for filling up six vacant posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges by direct recruitment in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services. Of the six posts, one was an unreserved-general category post. Against the said post, no horizontal reservation for woman was provided. There were three posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and two for the Economically Weaker Sections. One post in each of these categories was reserved horizontally reserved for women candidates. We are concerned with the one post falling in the general category for which no horizontal reservation for women was prescribed.
3. The petitioner offered his candidates against the general category post. On the basis of written examination held on 20th and 21st July, 2019, the High Court circulated a list of successful candidates, who were called for viva-voce. Amongst the general category candidates, one Rahul Singh having Roll No.1022 and the petitioner Ajay Dungrakoti having Roll No.1092, were called for viva-voce by the High Court. The result of the examination, namely, the written and the viva-voce was declared by the High Court, wherein Rahul Singh secured 247.16 marks and the petitioner secured 230 marks. They were at serial nos.1 and 2 in the merit list and they both belonged to the general category.
4. The result of the said examination was declared by the High Court on 23.08.2019. It discloses the names recommended to the State Government for appointment in Higher Judicial Services. Against the general category vacancy, the name of Mr. Rahul Singh was recommended. Since there was only one post for the general category, obviously, the name of the petitioner does not find mention in the said result. It appears that on the basis of two communications received from the State Government dated 15.11.2019 and 31.12.2019, the Full Court in its meeting held on 19.02.2020, resolved to reject the candidature of Mr. Rahul Singh. The communication to this effect was issued by the High Court of Uttarakhand to the State Government on 22.02.2020. This communication reads as follows:-
With regard to the subject noted above, kindly refer to your letter no.426/XXX(4)/2019- 04(1)/2018 T. C. dated 15.11.2019 and letter no.556/xxx(4)/2019-04(1)/2018(T.C) dated 31.12.2019 of Additional Secretary, Personnel & Vigilance Section 04, Government of Uttarakhand, by which, opinion of the Hon’ble Court has been sought in the matter.
2. In this regard, after considering the matter, Hon’ble Court has been pleased to recommend that the candidature of Sri Rahul Singh be rejected.
3. I am directed to communicate the aforesaid recommendation of the Hon’ble Court to the State Government.
4. You are, therefore, communicated with the opinion of the Hon’ble Court.”
5. It appears that the petitioner subsequently learnt of Mr. Rahul Singh not being appointed against the general category vacancy. On 18.08.2020, he made an application under the Right to Information Act to the Public Information Officer, High Court of Uttarakhand seeking information whether, after the declaration of the result of the examination in question, Mr. Rahul Singh had been granted appointment, and if any decision has been taken in relation to the appointment of Mr. Rahul Singh, a copy of the same may b
The denial of recommendation of the petitioner's name, simultaneously with the withdrawal/rejection of the recommendation made in favour of Mr. Rahul Singh, on 19.02.2020, was without any disclosed r....
A candidate's inclusion in a select list does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment; the authorities have discretion in the selection process.
The entitlement to appointments based on wait list positions and the application of age relaxation and policy circulars in determining eligibility for appointments.
(1) Appointments cannot be made over and above clear and anticipated vacancies which have been advertised even though Public Service Commission may have prepared a longer merit list than it was requi....
The petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of JLO from the reserved waiting list was found to be valid as he approached the Court before the expiry of the wait list, and the Court allowed the....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
