Page 1

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.2772 OF 2013

[ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.17295 OF 2011]

State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

… Appellant

Versus

Kumari Amita Singh & Ors.

… Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

1.

Leave granted.

2. The Public Service Commission Uttaranchal issued an advertisement

dated February 26, 2006 for appointment to the posts of Veterinary Doctor

in the department of Animal Husbandry. One of the conditions essential for

making an application was that the applicant should be duly registered with

Uttaranchal Veterinary Council.

3.

The aforesaid condition was challenged before the Uttarakhand High

Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No.98 of 2006. The High Court passed a very

Page 2

JUDGMENT

brief order on the case. It held without any deliberation or discussion that

the impugned condition offended Article 16 of the Constitution of India and,

though, declining to interfere with the 2006 advertisement on the ground that

it was issued four years ago, it directed the State Government by order dated

December 3, 2010 to ensure that in future anyone registered with the

Veterinary Council of any of the States in the country should be eligible for

appointment in Uttarakhand. The relevant portion of the High Court order is

as under:-

“….This is in breach of constitutional mandate

contained in Article 16 of the Constitution of

India. In the event registration as a Veterinary

Surgeon is considered to be the minimum eligible

qualification, henceforth the State Government

would ensure that persons registered as Veterinary

Surgeons are entitled to respond to advertisements

for recruitment of Veterinary Surgeons and shall

not insist for the candidates to be registered as

Veterinary Surgeons of the State of Uttarakhand.”

4.

We are of the view that the issue before the High Court was quite

serious and merited consideration in greater detail. We are unable to sustain

the very brief order passed by the High Court on this serious issue. We,

accordingly, set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court to

hear the parties afresh and to pass appropriate orders after taking into

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

consideration not only the provisions of the Constitution but also the

relevant statutory provisions.

5.

Needless to say that since the order of the High Court is set aside, it

will be open to the State Public Service Commission to adhere to the

previous terms as long as the High Court does not take a contrary view in

the matter.

6.

In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No

order as to costs.

……………………………...J.

(Aftab Alam)

……………………………...J.

(H.L. Gokhale)

New Delhi

April 2, 2013

3