JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following substantive reliefs:

“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus holding and directing that the inaction on the part of the State Govt. in granting appointment to the petitioner on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest is unjust and improper.

(i) a issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quashing the annexure-12 order dated 12.07.2023 issued on behalf of the 1st respondent.

(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the State Govt. (respondent no. 1) to issue appointment order in favour of the petitioner against the vacancy of the post of ACF that remained unfilled in the ACF Examination 2019.

(iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition restraining the State Govt. from carrying forward and supplying the unfilled vacancy of Assistant Conservator of Forest requisitioned to the Commission for the ACF Examination 2019 during the pendency of the present writ petition.”

2. Petitioner responded to an advertisement dated 30.07.2019 issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Commission’). By the said advertisement, 45 vacancies on direct recruitment quota post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (for short ‘ACF’) were notified.

3. Petitioner participated in the selection process consisting of written examination, interview and physical fitness test, which was held in 2021. On 06.12.2021, two select lists were issued by the Commission, whereby total 51 candidates were recommended for appointment. In the first list, names of 43 successful candidates were included, and in the second list, names of 8 successful candidates were included, in which, petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 1. Appointment was offered to all 43 candidates, whose names were included in the first select list dated 06.12.2021, and petitioner is next in order of merit after the last general category candidate, who was appointed.

4. As per relevant recruitment Rules, namely, Uttarakhand State Forest Service Rules, 2017, more names than number of vacancies are required to be recommended by the Commission (but not more than 25% of the advertised vacancies). The relevant provision of the Rules is extracted below:-

“16(8) If the preferential qualification of the candidates are equal, the name of the candidate senior in age shall be placed higher in the list and if the age of the candidates are also equal than the names shall be placed in alphabetical order. The number of name in the list shall more than the vacancies (but not more than 25%). The commission shall forward the list of selected candidates to the appointing authority.”

5. It is not in dispute that one General Category candidate, who had applied against unreserved vacancy, namely, Mr. Dipesh Kapil did not accept the appointment on the post of ACF, offered to him, as he was selected and appointed in Indian Forest Service. Name of Mr. Dipesh Kapil figured at Sl. No. 13 in the first select list, issued on 06.12.2021.

6. Petitioner staked claim for appointment against vacancy, which could not be filled, on account of Mr. Dipesh Kapil not turning up for joining.

7. It is not in dispute that petitioner had also applied against an unreserved vacancy, therefore, he asserted that the unreserved vacancy, against which Mr. Dipesh Kapil was selected/recommended, should be offered to him. Since petitioner’s claim was not considered by the Competent Authority, therefore, he filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the State Government to appoint him against such unfilled vacancy.

8. Before filing writ petition, petitioner had submitted a representation on 03.04.2023 for his appointment. The said representation was rejected by the Deputy Secretary, Forest Department, vide order dated 12.07.2023, which was also challenged by amending the writ petition.

9. As per record, on