Reserved on: 18.08.2025 Delivered on: 01.09.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1218 of 2024 (S/S)

Manali Chaudhary and others ….......Petitioners Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others …..... Respondents Present : Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional, Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

JUDGMENT

Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

The challenge in this petition is made to Rejection List dated 03.07.2024, issued by the respondent no.4, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (“the Commission”), whereby the petitioners have been declared ineligible for the post of Sugar Cane Supervisor.

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

3. The Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement on 08.01.2022 for recruitment of 78 posts of Sugar Cane Supervisor. It appears that process has not been taken to its logical ends. Its subsequent events are as follows:-

i) On 01.11.2023, the Commission sought clarification from Sugar Cane and Sugar Commissioner, Uttarakhand with regard to educational qualification for the post of Sugar Cane Supervisor. It was sought to be clarified that according to the Rules, 02 years Diploma in Agriculture is an essential qualification for Sugar Cane Supervisor, but since after High School, the Diploma in Agricultural Engineering is of 03 years, whether 03 years Diploma would be valid or not?

ii) The Commissioner Sugar Cane Development and Sugar Industry, by its communication dated 25.11.2023 informed to the concerned Secretary that 03 years Diploma may also be valid for the position.

iii) On 14.12.2023, the Commission issued a fresh advertisement inviting applications to fill up 78 vacancies of Sugar Cane Supervisor. The essential qualifications for the post is as follows:-

“A candidate for direct recruitment to the various posts in the service:

1. Must have passed the intermediate (Agriculture)

Examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttaranchal or an examination recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto:

or

2. (a) Must have passed High School Examination from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Uttaranchal or an examination recognised by the Government as equivalent thereto:

and (b) Must possess two years diploma in agriculture from a recognised institution.”

iv) It is the case of the petitioners that they possess the requisite qualifications, therefore, they participated in the process. On 26.04.2024, the result was declared and the petitioners were called for document verification. But finally, the petitioners were held ineligible for the post on the ground that they do not posses essential qualification, as they possessed Diploma in Agricultural Engineering instead of Diploma in Agriculture. The challenge is made to it.

4. The respondent no.2/Directorate of Cane Development and Sugar Industries Uttarakhand filed its counter affidavit. According to it, the petitioner is devoid of merits. The Commission has filed its counter affidavit. According to it, Diploma in Agricultural Engineering either for

02 years or 03 years is not a qualification for the position of Sugar Cane Supervisor. By way of additional counter affidavit, the respondent Commission has also stated that the petitioners do not possess the essential qualification. Reference has been made to WPSS No.41 of 2024, Deeksha Dhiman vs. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission connected case, wherein this Court has held that graduation in Agriculture is not equivalent to Bachelor of Technology in Agriculture Engineering.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are Bachelor in Agricultural Engineering, which is 03 years course. The Commission has sought a clarification from the Government and the Secretary, Government of Uttarakhand on 14.12.2023 had communicated it to the Commission that the