HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1342 of 2025

Mahima Rana ......Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others ….Respondents

Present:

Mr. Gaurav Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Pundir, D.A.G. for the State/respondent no.1.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the respondent no.2.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.(Oral)

Heard.

2. Admit.

3. Learned C.S.C. takes notice on behalf of the respondent

no.1.

3. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate takes notice for the

respondent no.2.

4. Respondent may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Two weeks thereafter, rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be

filed.

5. List on 13.10.2025.

Heard on Interim Relief Application No. 1 of 2025

6. It is the case of the petitioner that he responded to an advertisement issued by the respondent on 07.02.2024 for various posts. She qualified the written examination, but after documents verification, her candidature was rejected on the

ground that she has not produced, the certificate, as required, with regard to the computer knowledge.

7. By means of interim relief application, the petitioner claims that the petitioner’s name be considered for the final list preparation of the post to which she applied.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has successfully competed Advance Diploma in Information Technology, a course which deals with a computer applications, web designing, hardware, networking, etc. The petitioner is eligible for the post. He submits that in a similarly situated case, in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1165 of 2020, Pooja Chamoli Vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and others, this Court has considered the diploma certificate given by the APTECH Computer Education ADSE (Shikhar Project). It is submitted that the recognition of the petitioner’s certificate is not in doubt, but for wrong reasons, the certificate has been denied.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that principles of law, as laid down in the case of Pooja Chamoli (supra) does not apply in the instant case because the petitioner does not possess requisite computer eligibility.

10. Having considered, as an interim measure, till the next date of listing, this Court provisionally permits the petitioner to further participate in the recruitment process. The respondent/Commission shall allow the petitioner to proceed further, but the result of the petitioner shall not be declared without prior permission of the Court.

11. Interim relief application stands disposed of accordingly.

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)

14.08.2025 Jitendra