SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(UK) 211

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.
Girish Prasad Maithani – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2772 of 2017
Decided On : 20-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Rajendra Dobhal, Shubhang Dobhal.
For the Respondent: Pradeep Hariya

IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that arbitrary exclusion from a selection process violates the rights of eligible candidates, warranting judicial intervention.

Headnote:

Appointment - Instructor Mechanic - None

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought to quash an order rejecting his appointment as Instructor Mechanic, claiming that two ineligible candidates were wrongly selected, preventing his inclusion in the select list despite meeting qualifications.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner was unjustly denied appointment due to the arbitrary selection of ineligible candidates, and thus entitled to the position.

Issues: Whether the petitioner was wrongfully excluded from the select list for the post of Instructor Mechanic due to the inclusion of ineligible candidates.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner had a legitimate claim for appointment based on qualifications and the arbitrary actions of the respondents denied him this right.

Result: The writ petition is allowed, and the petitioner is directed to be appointed as Instructor Mechanic.

JUDGMENT :

PANKAJ PUROHIT, J.

1. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court for quashing of the impugned order dated 22.07.2017 passed by respondent no. 2 (annexure no. 12 to the writ petition) whereby representation of petitioner, submitted pursuant to the order passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 06.07.2017, was rejected and further a writ of mandamus directing respondpent no. 2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle & Driving) towards the vacancy arose due to cancelation of selection of Ajay Kumar Arya and Saurabh Uniyal, who were not eligible to be selected on the post.

2. Facts of the case, shorn off unnecessary details, are that pursuant to an advertisement dated 20.06.2010, petitioner submitted his candidature for the post of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle & Driving) with the respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner could not be selected for the reason that in the select list, two persons, namely, Ajay Kumar Arya and Saurabh Uniyal were found place in the select list wrongly and due to this reason name of the petitioner was thrown out of the select list.

3. It is the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that Ajay Kumar Arya has wrongly been selected for the reason that he was not having Mathematics as a subject in High School while Saurabh Uniyal was not having the certificate of N.T.C/N.A.C. These are essential conditions for a candidate to be successful for the post of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle & Driving). Since the petitioner could not figure in the select list and was refused appointment, he preferred writ petition being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 396 of 2014, which came to be decided by the Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2014 whereby petitioner was given an opportunity to file representation and respondent no. 2 was directed to decide the representation of the petitioner within the stipulated period. Petitioner submitted judgment and order dated 24.03.2014 alongwith forwarding letter dated 09.04.2010 to respondent no. 2 and requested to give him appointment on the post of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle & Driving) in the respondent-department, pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The said representation of petitioner was rejected by respondent no. 2 vide order dated 06.05.2014 (Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition) stating therein that petitioner was not one of the selectee out of the 18 candidates selected on the said post, therefore, there is no justification to issue appointment letter to the petitioner.

4. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection order dated 06.05.2014, petitioner moved this Court by filing another Writ Petition No. 1115 of 2014, which came to be decided by this Court vide order dated 07.06.2017 and after discussing the case of the petitioner and respondents in detail, the Coordinate Bench of this Court has been gracious enough to direct respondent no. 2-Direcotor, Employment and Training, Uttarakhand to take decision on petitioner’s claim for appointment based on his performance in aforesaid selection.

5. Again petitioner has to make the same prayer as the decision has been taken by respondent no. 2 and claim of petitioner was again rejected vide decision dated 22.07.2017, which is now, impugned in this writ petition.

6. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the terms and condition of the advertisement i.e. Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition, the candidate for the post of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle & Driving) must possess High School with a subject Mathematics and further the candidate must possess the N.T.C/N.A.C certificate.

7. The attention of this Court was drawn to the advertisement wherein essential qualification has been given for the post of Instructor Mechanic (Motor Vehicle & Driving). For the post from Serial Nos.1 to 15, educational qualification has been given and according to which educati







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top