Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

Since the facts of these petitions are the same and the issue involved is also similar, hence these petitions are taken up together and decided by this common judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Facts of the case are that Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (hereby to be referred to as ‘the Commission’) issued an advertisement dated 26.11.2015 inviting applications for recruitment to 196 posts of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. The petitioners participated in the selection process, appeared in the written examination conducted on 06.03.2016 and were declared successful. Subsequently, complaints regarding manipulation of OMR answer sheets led to the constitution of an inquiry committee by the State Government. On the basis of the interim inquiry report, the Commission cancelled the entire selection process vide Office Memorandum dated 16.06.2017. The said cancellation was challenged before this Court in WPSS No. 2105 of 2017 (Kamal Bhatt and others vs. State of Uttarakhand and others), wherein this Court directed for holding a restricted re-examination for candidates who had appeared in the original examination. Accordingly, a re-examination was conducted on 25.02.2018 and a fresh merit list was prepared. According to petitioners, final inquiry report dated 04.10.2018, based on forensic examination of OMR sheets, identified candidates whose answer sheets were found tainted, whereas the petitioners were not found involved in any irregularity. Claiming that they stood exonerated by the inquiry, the petitioners asserted a right to be considered for appointment.

3. The Commission thereafter issued a fresh advertisement dated 06.11.2020 for recruitment to the post of Gram Panchayat Vikas Adhikari. Petitioners, seeking consideration of their candidature against the available vacancies, approached this Court by filing WPSS No.1753 of 2020. The said writ petition was disposed of on 09.03.2026 with a direction to the competent authority to consider the petitioners' claim in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, petitioners submitted representations, which came to be rejected by the Commission vide Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2026. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned Office Memorandum dated 13.04.2026 is arbitrary, suffers from complete non-application of mind and the same has been passed in disregard of the directions issued by this Court in WPSS No. 1753 of 2020. It was argued that while disposing of earlier writ petition, this Court had directed the Commission to consider the petitioners' claim in the light of the issues raised by them. However, instead of examining whether the petitioners could be considered against the available vacancies, despite their exoneration in the inquiry proceedings, the Commission rejected their claim solely on the ground that they were not selected pursuant to the re-examination conducted in the year 2018. According to petitioners, the Authority completely failed to address the real controversy and consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.

5. It was further submitted that the final inquiry report dated 04.10.2018 clearly established that the irregularities relating to recruitment process were neither pervasive nor incapable of identification. Learned counsel contended that the OMR sheets were subjected to fore