##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:1416

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

S NL o.

.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

and Registrar’s

order with

Signatures

WPSS 2144/ 2023

Hon’ble Manoj Kum ar Tiw ari, J.

Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate,

for the petitioner.

Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder, for

the State.

Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, Advocate, for

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate,

assisted by Mr. Devesh Kandpal, Advocate for

the respondent no. 3.

(2) Petitioner participated in a selection

for the post of Workshop Instructor

(Electrical). As per the advertisement, every

candidate was required to have industrial

experience of minimum three years. According

to petitioner, consequent upon written

examination, his name figured in the

provisional merit list, however, at the time of

document verification, it was found that

experience certificate possessed by him was

not as per the condition of advertisement.

Therefore, his name did not figure in the final

merit list and one Sri Chandan Singh

(respondent no. 3) was recommended for

appointment in place of petitioner. Thus feeling

aggrieved, petitioner has approached this

Court seeking the following reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned

Provisional Recommendation List of Candidates (contained

as Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition) to the extent of

exclusion of the name of the petitioner and to the extent of

permitting change of preference/choice to the respondent

no. 3 to Technical Education (as against his original

preference of Tribal Welfare) after the declaration of the

result.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature

of mandamus directing the respondents not to issue

appointment letter in favour of respondent no. 3 on the

basis of Provisional Recommendation List of Candidates

(contained as Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition) as

against the petitioner’s preference of Technical Education

and may further be pleased to direct the respondents to

2026:UHC:1416

forthwith include the name of the petitioner in the

Provisional Recommendation of List of Candidates

(contained as Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition) as

against petitioner’s preference of Technical Education.”

(3) This Court do not find any reason to

interfere in the matter as the experience

certificate submitted by the petitioner was

issued by an electrical contractor. Since the

advertisement clearly indicated that every

candidate must have industrial experience,

therefore, experience certificate obtained while

serving with a contractor does not fall within

the category of industrial experience.

(4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner

contends that rules of the game were changed

inasmuch as a corrigendum was issued on

11.7.2022, wherein it was provided that

industrial experience should be from an

industry registered under the applicable rules

with the State Government or the Central

Government, which is illegal, and therefore

petitioner is entitled to be recommended for

appointment.

(5) This Court is not impressed by the

aforesaid submission. Since the condition

mentioned in the advertisement itself is clear

and petitioner does not meet the said

condition, therefore, he is not affected by any

clarification, which is provided in the

corrigendum.

(6) Even otherwise also, respondent no.

3 scored 84.75 per cent marks, while

petitioner scored 81.25 per cent marks in the

selection in question, therefore selection of

respondent no. 3 cannot be faulted. Thus there

is no scope for interference in the matter. Writ

petition fails and is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

27.2.2026

Pr

PRABODH KUMARD2pBDe.EoiNa5rg5sti:4ettca:a,N= l2clC0Iu0nyNom s,d36iPobega.RnAHr8eB26IdGO9 bD1yCCHP :9 ,RK5s9UAUtE=1BMf8T2OUDT+D1R0FH CAa5KR'3T6U5MKEHA17R4NB3 K9aDH4f80NE2FD1Dc,5o08u6=H2AIfGCe aCOA4UBR56T81 aOf03F2UeDTFb6A1R9C8AdK54H862N5D073F, C9157

2026:UHC:1416