HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE MANOJ KUMAR TI WARI

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 494 of 2024

Amita William --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition (S/ S) No. 525 of 2024

Sheetu Masih --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 459 of 2024

Suman Mani and Another --Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 465 of 2024

Anuranjita Sharma and others --Petitioners

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 469 of 2024

Hemlata --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 470 of 2024

Suchita Madu --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 513 of 2024

Sunita Thapliyal --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 514 of 2024

Beena Pant --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

With

Writ Petition ( S/ S) No. 524 of 2024

Krishna --Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Advocates: Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate with Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioner in WPSS Nos. 494/2024 and 525/2024 Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner in WPSS Nos. 470/2024, 514/2024 and 524/2024.

Ms. Anupriya Kukreti, Advocate holding brief of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner in WPSS No. 513/2024.

Mr. Narain Dutt Bhatt, Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Gaurav Nagpal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

1. Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these petitions, therefore they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition No. 494 of 2024 (SS) alone are being discussed and considered. In Writ Petition No. 494 of 2024 (SS), petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the condition no.7 of the advertisement dated 11.3.2024 (annexed at Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) for age criteria as fixed by the respondent board in the Nursing Officer Examination 2024 as far as the maximum age limit of 42 years has been fixed.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding and directing the Respondent No. 4 Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Medical Board Dehradun, to issue necessary corrigendum to the Advertisement dated 11.3.2024 by providing the relaxation in upper age limit in favor of the petitioner, who had earlier applied for the same vacancy in pursuant to the advertisement dated 12.12.2020 and 2.2.2021 by fixing the cut-off date for determination of upper age limit as provided in the said advertisement.”

2. According to petitioner, she passed Diploma course in General Nursing & Midwifery from Ganga Sheel School of Nursing, Bareilly, in April, 2012; her date of birth is 17.06.1981; by virtue of academic qualification, possessed by her, she is eligible for appointment as Nursing Officer (Female) in Department of Medical Health and also in Department of Medical Education.

3. Mode of recruitment and conditions of service of Nursing Officer (Female) in aforesaid two departments are governed by same set of service Rules, namely, Uttarakhand Subordinate Nurses (Non-Gazetted) Service Rules, 2015.

4. Rule 15 of the said Rules lays down the criteria of selection. Earlier selection for the post of Nursing Officer (female) was merit based i.e. based on performance of a candidate in written examination; however, the rules were amended in 2022 and selection criteria was changed as year of passing the nursing training course. As per Rule 10 of the service rules, the upper age limit for appointment as Nursing Officer is 42 years.

5. It is not in dispute that an ad