HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 49 of 2025 Kamal Singh Kulyal and another ….....Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:-

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ganesh Kandpal D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos. 1 to

3.

Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the respondent no.4.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to a communication dated 27.12.2024 issued by the respondent no.1/the State of Uttarakhand (“the State”), by which, the permission has been denied for making appointment on unfilled vacancies of advertised post of Forester on the ground that life of the waiting list has expired. The petitioners also seek direction that the State may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment against unfilled vacancies on the post of Forester based on advertisement dated 18.12.2019 issued by the respondent no.4/Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (“the Commission”) as the names of the petitioners have been recommended by the Commission on 21.07.2024 in the waiting list.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 18.12.2019 by the Commission, the petitioners applied for the post. After undergoing the entire process, the Commission made recommendation in favour of the 292 selected candidates for their appointment on 21.09.2023. Thereafter, the chronology has been stated:-

(i) On 14.11.2023, the Commission also recommended 16 candidates for appointment to the post of Forester.

(ii) On 22.02.2024, Commission recommended four candidates for appointment to the post of Forester.

(iii) The respondent nos. 2 and 3, Forest Department made a communication to the Commission informing that 9 candidates, who were recommended for appointment have not joined. Therefore, the Commission made further recommendation for appointment of 6 candidates for appointment on 21.07.2024. The petitioners names were included in that recommendation. But, when approached by its communication dated 27.12.2024, the State has declined approval for making appointment on the unfilled vacancies from the waiting list on the ground that the life of waiting list has expired after one year from the date of recommendation. It is impugned herein.

4. The State has filed its counter affidavit. According to it, the first recommendation was made by the Commission on 21.09.2023 and after one year of it, the waiting list gets expired. Therefore, the State had declined to give appointment to the petitioners by the impugned order.

5. In fact, the petitioners have also raised an objection that the life of waiting list for one year has been fixed by Waiting List Rules, 2023 (“2023 Rules”), which may not be applicable in the instant case because initial advertisement was issued in the year

2019.

6. According to the State, as per office memorandum dated 03.07.2007, the merit list published by Departmental Selection Committees for direct recruitment posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission shall not be used after one year from the date of receipt of such select list. This office memorandum has been enclosed by the State alongwith its counter affidavit as Annexure 2.

7. Respondent no.4 has not filed any affidavit.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners’ name had already recommended for appointment by the Commission on 21.07.2024. He would submit that the life of waiting list may be counted from the last recommendation made from the merit list, which in the instant case, according to learned counsel for the petitioners was made on 22.02.2024. He would submit that the time of one year should have been counted from this date. But, even otherwise, he would submit that the first select recommendation of 292 candidates was made by the Commission to the Appointing Authority on 21.09.2023.