Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1829

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, J
Shivani Saini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shubhang Dobhal
For the Respondents: Amarendra Pratap Singh, B.S. Parihar, Pankaj Miglani

While recruitment rules generally cannot be changed after commencement to the prejudice of candidates, modifications that provide beneficial relaxations to existing qualifying benchmarks are permissible. Furthermore, inclusion in provisional document verification lists does not confer a vested right to final selection over statutory eligibility requirements.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Public Employment - Recruitment Process - Minimum Qualifying Marks - Changes to selection criteria - Rule that recruitment conditions cannot be altered after commencement is not violated if no prejudice is caused to candidates - Where regulations already provided for minimum qualifying benchmarks, subsequent amendments providing further relaxation for specific sub-categories do not constitute an impermissible mid-stream change. (Paras 11, 23)

(B) Recruitment Rules - Vested Rights - Provisional inclusion in a document verification list - Mere inclusion of a candidate in an intermediate list for document verification does not confer an indefeasible right to appointment - Final selection is contingent upon meeting all prescribed statutory benchmarks and minimum cut-off marks. (Paras 7, 24)

Facts of the case:
Appellants challenged the dismissal of their petition regarding their exclusion from a recruitment process. Although they were initially included in a list for document verification, they were subsequently declared unsuccessful for failing to achieve the minimum qualifying marks. The dispute centered on whether an amendment to the regulations, which prescribed specific cut-off marks for sub-categories after the written examination, constituted an arbitrary alteration of selection conditions.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the requirement for minimum qualifying marks was already part of the existing regulatory framework. The subsequent amendment merely refined and further lowered these benchmarks for specific sub-categories, thereby acting as a beneficial provision rather than one creating prejudice. The court emphasized that the appellants, by failing to achieve even the relaxed cut-off marks, could not claim their exclusion was arbitrary or violative of constitutional provisions.

Issues: The primary issues were whether the introduction of specific cut-off marks post-commencement of the recruitment process was legally permissible and whether the provisional inclusion of candidates in a document verification list created a vested right for final selection.

Ratio Decidendi: Rules regarding recruitment cannot be altered to the prejudice of candidates mid-stream; however, where existing statutory regulations already define the necessity of minimum qualifying marks and the subsequent amendment provides a relaxation, such modification is valid. Additionally, a document verification list is an intermediate stage and does not override statutory requirements for final selection.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. dispute regarding mid-stream alteration of service recruitment selection criteria and cut-off marks. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
2. analysis of statutory regulations and the nature of the fourth amendment 2024 as a beneficial measure. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
3. recruitment advertisement explicitly incorporated the existing statutory minimum qualifying mark framework. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
4. absence of prejudice due to lower cut-offs and provisional verification lists do not vest selection rights. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta)

1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1692 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed, as also the order dated 17.06.2026, whereby Miscellaneous Application (MCC No.03 of 2025), filed by the appellants seeking recall of the order dated 19.11.2025, has also been dismissed.

2. The dispute arose out of the recruitment exercise undertaken by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers in different engineering disciplines under the Uttarakhand Combined State Junior Engineer Service Examination, 2023. The Commission issued a detailed advertisement dated 14.10.2023 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts of Junior Engineers in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Agricultural Engineering Departments under different establishments of the State.

3. Appellant No.1 submitted application claiming benefit of vertical reservation under OBC category and also horizontal reservation as physically challenged person under PwD category. Appellant No.2 submitted application as a General category candidate, but he also sought the benefit of horizontal reservation under PwD category.

4. As per the recruitment scheme, selection was to be made solely through a written examination (objective type). The written examination was conducted between 23.12.2023 and 27.12.2023. The total marks, on basis of which, candidates were assessed were 920. Petitioner No.1 secured 112.0326 marks, which is 12.1774 percent of the total marks. Petitioner No.2 obtained 89.4874 marks, which is 9.7269 percent of the total marks. After evaluation of answer scripts, the Commission issued a notification dated 23.02.2024 publishing a list of candidates called for document verification. There were twelve posts reserved for the PwD category and according to the Commission, all candidates belonging to the said category were called for document verification. The marks of the last candidate called for document verification in PwD (HH/ PD) category were 43.8732 and accordingly, the same was notified as the cut-off marks for the PwD category in the notification dated 23.02.2024, issued by the Commission in respect of the candidates called for document verification. The names of the appellants were duly included in the said list. According to the Commission, the selection process was held in accordance with the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Regulations, 2022 . Under Regulation 13 thereof, where the selection is held solely on basis of written examination, the cut-off marks for the vertical reservation and sub-categories (horizontal reservation) was 45% for the general category, 40% for OBC category, 40% for economically backward class, 35% for Scheduled Caste and 35% for Scheduled Tribes.

5. After the document verification, the Commission held a meeting on 01.03.2024 and in the said meeting, it decided to amend the Regulations and prescribe 30% as cut-off marks for Divyangjan candidates and 35% for dependants of freedom fighters and ex-service men. Accordingly, the Regulations were amended by the Fourth Amendment, 2024

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1829

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDManoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, JShivani Saini – AppellantVersusState Of Uttarakhand – RespondentSPECIAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2026

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ, Subhash Upadhyay, J
Shivani Saini – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttarakhand – Respondent
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 99 OF 2026