MOHINDRA SINGH BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-113
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 12,2013

Mohindra Singh Bisht Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Sanjay Raturi, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Technical Education Board, Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for Pey Jal Sansthan Evam Nirman Vibhag, Uttarakhand, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, Advocate for respondent Nos. 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, 14 & 15 and Mr. Sanjeev Singh, Advocate for the interveners.
(2.) SINCE the present bunch of writ petitions involve common question of law and fact, hence all these writ petitions are being decided together by this common judgment. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts related to WPSS No. 785/2012 filed by Smt. Mohindra Singh Bisht are being taken into consideration. The respondents had issued an advertisement dated 04.05.2012 calling for eligible candidates for appointment, inter alia, on the post of Junior Engineers in Electrical/Mechanical trades. All the petitioners were candidates for appointment on the post of Junior Engineers in various departments of the State of Uttarakhand and the examination was to be conducted by the Uttarakhand Technical Education Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). The present dispute though limits itself for recruitment to one department i.e. Uttarakhand Pey Jal Sansthan Evam Nirman Vibhag, which has been impleaded as respondent No. 3 and the other candidates have also been impleaded, who according to the petitioner have been wrongly selected.
(3.) THE principle ground of the petitioners is that the advertisement was issued on 04.05.2012 calling for eligible candidates for the posts of Junior Engineers in various departments. There were 28 posts of Junior Engineers (Electrical/Mechanical) in the Pey Jal Sansthan Evam Nirman Vibhag, out of which, 2 posts each were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Other Backward Classes. Meaning thereby, there were 24 posts for the General category candidates. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and were declared successful, and subsequently the respondents published a list of successful candidates on 28.03.2012 in which the petitioners' name figure. The total number of successful candidates was 30.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.