Back
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Shri Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
Mohan Lal Bhatt – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. amendments to recruitment rules did not cause prejudice. (Para 3 , 4 , 6) |
| 2. eligibility criteria changes were lawful and appropriately communicated. (Para 7 , 8 , 24) |
| 3. court confirmed that amendments did not constitute changes mid-selection. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. no vested rights were established for candidates under amended rules. (Para 16 , 19) |
| 5. state government has discretion to consider experience for future selections. (Para 28) |
JUDGMENT
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore they were heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However for the sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No.338 of 2022 alone are being considered and discussed.
3. Petitioner responded to an advertisement dated 13.10.2021 issued by Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board (respondent no. 3), whereby applications were invited for appointment to 306 posts in Technician cadre in Government Medical Colleges. The said advertisement was issued in terms of the Recruitment Rules notified on 13.04.2020, in which one of the condition of eligibility was two years experience in the
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
