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

2026 Supreme(UK) 209

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL


Table of Content
1. common issue in writ petitions on md appointment rules. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. challenges to appointment lacking mandatory qualification. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
3. petitioners argue mandatory engineering degree, no equivalence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. pil stresses transparency in public appointments. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. state defends equivalence via proviso flexibility. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40)
6. respondent claims substantial equivalence and no prejudice. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
7. judicial review limited to eligibility compliance. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51)
8. rule 9a mandates engineering degree as eligibility. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57)
9. proviso requires reasoned, pre-appointment equivalence. (Para 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
10. appointment violates articles 14, 16 without record. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70)
11. appointment set aside for lacking statutory compliance. (Para 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)

JUDGMENT :

Ashish Naithani, J.

1. These three writ petitions, namely WPSB No. 710 of 2024, WPPIL No. 70 of 2025 and WPSB No. 295 of 2025, arise

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top