Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings SL.

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS No.

and Registrar’s order with Signatures WPSB/ 200/ 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

1. Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Mr. D.S. Bora, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. Petitioner participated in selection held by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (in short ‘Commission’) for appointment to the post of Principal, Government Industrial Training Institute. According to her, she was selected, however, was denied appointment only on the ground that she could not produce the physical print out of required documents, submitted by her at the time of submission of online application, in the Office of Commission, on or before

15.09.2016.

4. The order dated 22.03.2017, whereby petitioner’s candidature was rejected is on record as Annexure-11 to the writ petition. In para 4 of the said order, it is mentioned that petitioner did not furnish the required documents, till

15.09.2016.

5. Mr. I.P. Gairola, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submits that petitioner had submitted the required documents on 09.12.2016. Thus, according to him, the extreme step of cancelling petitioner’s candidature, taken by the Commission, is not proper. He further submits that since petitioner was posted as Teacher in a remote place in the State of Uttarakhand, therefore, she had no idea about the deadline fixed by the Commission for furnishing the documents.

6. This Court does not find scope for interference in the matter. Every candidate, who applies pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Commission, is expected to follow the notification issued by the Commission in Newspaper or Official Website. The Commission had required all candidates to produce physical print out of the online application, along with all required documents which were deposited at the time of submission of online application, for verification.

7. Since petitioner herself is to be blamed for not furnishing the desired documents within the stipulated time, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter, that too, at this belated stage.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

28.04.2025 Aswal N SI I N T G I R H A A J SWAL DDo25ps6cD e n .f F u o iN a 59 r g 5= = s t i .8 : 4 a i e C t N t Hc 0al . : a 2 2 N = I l2 I 2T l C G0 I u a 0 y I N D o = H 3 m 2R s, d e A a 5A i Co be a g 0 C .J = 0 O = c e 8 n F 4S H r2b U e 4= 6 I. 6 3 Id N 0 F RG 7 43 0 8 4 T G b 5 H 0 d 6 1 7 H E y O 1 1 0 C e B 1 N F 0 3 A: O 5 2 , C 6 I U S 7 4 T s 0 U 9 1W 8 t T C I : R 5= 1 F R B A 1 E T U 1A A F5 2 L e O T - R 0 J 8 e 0 9 AFS a A 7 3 AB I K 3 ' U 5 N 0 R7 H 0 8 f TG A6 f A 5 ' 83 9 H K 3 AN9, 8H 1 A 3 RD CA 7 4 AS B , 2 N f WK 6 0 6 D H F 7 F A 1, 4 A B L 0 7 N C0 D 2 0 , , C 5 E a 3D 8 2