Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(UK) 29

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ, SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Himanshu Aswal and Another – Appellants
Versus
State of Uttarakhand and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal Nos. 423, 433 of 2025, Special Appeal No. 56 of 2026
Decided On : 01-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : B.M. Pingal
For the Respondents: B.P.S. Mer, S.M.S. Mehta

Clarification of eligibility criteria by the Urban Development Department regarding 'concerned trade' did not alter selection rules but ensured appropriate compliance with service specifications.

Headnote:(A) Uttarakhand Palika (Non-Centralized) Employees Service (Group-C) Rules, 2017 - Qualification for the post of Draughtsman - Writ petition partly allowed modifying select list to ensure only candidates with specific Draughtsman qualifications are eligible - Query by the Commission to clarify qualifications seen as out of order given the existing rules - Select list quashed for including candidates lacking requisite qualifications. (Paras 3, 28, 30)

(B) Appeal - Scope of judicial interference - Court finds no need for judicial intervention as it was unwarranted and obstructive to selection process. (Paras 30, 29)

Facts of the case:
Appeals against the judgment where a writ petition led to the revision of a select list for Draughtsman positions to only include those with ITI/Diploma in Draughtsmanship. Appellants scored above cut-off but were excluded due to qualifications deemed inappropriate under service rules.

Findings of Court:
The learned Single Judge's decision limited the definition of 'concerned trade' to a single qualification, erred in the judicial intervention, resulting in selection process derailment.

Issues: Questions on whether the Urban Development Department could clarify eligibility criteria under existing service rules and the implications for the final select list.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the commission clarified its understanding of the 'concerned trade' rather than changing eligibility rules, and that such clarification was valid and necessary for a functional selection process.

Result: Appeals allowed, and the Single Judge's order set aside.

Table of Content
1. filing of intra-court appeals against a judgment. (Para 1 , 2)
2. facts detailing the selection process. (Para 4)
3. petitioner's contention regarding eligibility rules. (Para 6 , 7)
4. court's observations on the ambiguity of qualification. (Para 11 , 12)
5. court's analysis on interpretation of 'concerned trade.' (Para 15 , 19 , 21 , 22)
6. application of precedent regarding employer's qualifications. (Para 23 , 24)
7. final decision on appeals and the selection process. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ.

1. These intra-court appeals have been filed against the common judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated 04.12.2025, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 131 of 2025, Prakash Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & others.

2. Special Appeal Nos.423 of 2025 and 433 of 2025 have been filed by the selected candidates whose selection pursuant to the selection list dated 08.01.2025 stands adversely affected as a result of the impugned judgment and connected Special Appeal No.56 of 2026 has been preferred by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”).

3. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-

“27. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition is partly allowed.

28. The select list dated 08.01.2025 issued by the respondent Commission is to be revised so as to ensure that in the Urban Development Department, only those candidates are eligible for appointment to the post of Draughtsman, who have done their Diploma/ ITI Certificate in Draughtsman trade only.

29. The select list dated 08.01.2025 issued by the respondent Commission is quashed to the extent it includes candidates holding Diploma/ certificate other than Diploma/ ITI certificate in Draughtsman in Urban Development Department.

30. The respondent Commission is directed to issue a revised select list for appointment to the post of Draughtsman in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.05.2023 and its corrigendum issued by the Commission, in the light of the observations made above within a month.”

4. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of the instant special appeals are as follows:-

(i) The Commission issued an advertisement on 29.05.2023 for holding recruitment on the post of Draftsman/ Cartographer in five departments of the Government of Uttarakhand. Later on, by a corrigendum dated 23.06.2023, 12 posts of Draftsman/ Cartographer in PWD Department were also included in the selection process. Thus, in all there were 77 posts, in respect of which, recruitment was held. The petitioner along with other candidates appeared in the written test comprising of objective type questions on 05.11.2023. Based on the same, on 21.12.2023, the Commission issued a list of candidates shortlisted for document verification, in which the name of the petitioner also figured. During document verification, it was observed that in service rules of three departments, i.e. Forest Department, Agriculture Department and Culture Department, diploma in Civil Engineering is stipulated as one of the minimum essential qualifications, but the Service Rules of the Urban Development Department provided for Diploma/ ITI certificate in the ‘concerned trade’ as the essential qualification without naming the qualification or the trade. The Service Rules in respect of Minor Irrigation Department and Public Works Department mentions Diploma and equivalent diploma as the required qualification.

(ii) A large number of candidates, who had cleared the cut-off in the document verification list, held Diploma in Civil Engineering and have marked their preferences in all the departments. Hence, the Commission, in order to clarify as to what would be the ‘concerned trade’ in which Diploma/ ITI certification could be treated as a required qualification in the Urban Development Department and what could be treated as equivalent diploma in Minor Irrigation Department and Public Works Department, vide t