The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory application of 30% horizontal reservation for women candidates of Uttarakhand in the selection process for the post of Assistant Professor, Hindi, and the consequences of the respondent-University's failure to grant the reservation.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to declare the denial of benefit of reservation available to Uttarakhand General (Women) for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Hindi - to which category the petitioner belongs, in respect of the selection process held in the year 2016 by the respondent no.1-Uttarakhand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalyala to be arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner further seeks a writ of certiorari calling for the records to quash the appointment of respondent no.3-Umesh Kumar Shukla, who has been appointed as Assistant Professor (Hindi) in the aforesaid selection process undertaken in the year 2016. She also seeks a direction that respondent no.2 should appoint the petitioner to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi) from the due date when other persons were selected in the selection process held in the year 2016 by giving her the benefit of reservation available to Uttarakhand Women (General).

2. The relevant facts may be stated. The respondent-University issued the advertisement on 22.04.2015, inviting applications to fill up several posts, including one post of Assistant Professor in Hindi.

3. The said post was stated to be an un-reserved post. The advertisement also stated at Note No.15 that reservation would be granted as per the prevailing government policy. The petitioner made her application in response to the said advertisement for the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi), and she claimed reservation as Uttarakhand Women.

4. The respondents called the qualified candidates for interview. In the interview process, the petitioner was awarded 73.99 marks, which was the highest marks awarded to any woman candidate. Pertinently, in the Marking Scheme, 12 marks were awarded to the candidates, who were holding Ph.D. and the petitioner was also awarded 12 marks by the respondent-University. The case of the petitioner is that in the cadre of Assistant Professor, there are 31 posts. As per the Reservation Policy of the Government, which was then prevalent, vide G.O. dated 24.07.2006, 30% horizontal reservation was granted to women of Uttarakhand. The petitioner states that, by virtue of Note-15 of the advertisement, the said Government Order dated 24.07.2006 was attracted, and therefore, 30% of the 31 seats in the cadre of Assistant Professor ought to be reserved for women of Uttarakhand.

5. The case of the petitioner is that prior to the initiation of the recruitment process by the aforesaid advertisement dated 22.04.2015, there was only one woman of Uttarakhand, who was serving in the cadre of Assistant Professor at the respondent-University. 30% (thirty per cent) of the 31 posts in the cadre of Assistant Professor would translate to nine posts, which ought to have been reserved for the women of Uttarakhand.

6. The case of the petitioner is that the respondent-University, however, did not apply the horizontal reservation, and despite the fact that the petitioner had secured the highest marks amongst all women candidates for the post of Assistant Professor in Hindi, she was not granted the appointment to the advertised post. Instead, respondent no.3 was selected and granted appointment, on the ground that he had secured the highest marks i.e. 81.33. On the aforesaid premise, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition soon after the appointment of respondent no.3 to the post of Assistant Professor (Hindi).

7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent authorities were bound to grant reservation for women of Uttarakhand in terms of the aforesaid Governmental Policy dated 24.07.2006.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a reading of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent-University, also shows that the respondent-University does not deny the fact that horizontal reservation for Women of Uttarakhand is mandatorily required to be granted. In para 17 of the counter affidavit-in response to para nos. 14 and 15