Decided on June 21,2013

Pradeep Singh Rauthan Appellant


- (1.) The petitioners faced a selection process for the posts of Assistant Regional Inspector (Inspector) in the Transport Department of Uttarakhand Government. The selection was to be made by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the "Commission"). An advertisement was issued on 18.6.2011 by the Commission for filling up 01 post of Regional Inspector (Technical) and 15 posts of Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical). The eligibilities for appointment as Assistant Regional Inspector (Technical) were that a candidate must have High School qualification with Science Subjects, three years Diploma in Mechanical Engineering and three years practical experience in any reputed workshop where the work of repairing of light and heavy diesel and petrol vehicles is done. Apart from that, the candidate must have driving license and knowledge of Hindi. All the petitioners before this Court having the requisite qualifications appeared in the written examination, which was of 150 marks. Thereafter, the petitioners went through practical examination which was of 100 marks in which practical knowledge of the petitioners was also examined and after having qualified the test, they were called for interview, which was of 35 marks (total marks in the entire examination were 285). However, the only reason why the results of the petitioners have not been declared by the Commission is that the candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected on the ground that the experience of three years which have been gained by them was before they had done their respective diplomas. Hence their candidatures were liable to be rejected, as according to the respondents this "experience" must be after their diploma. The contention of the petitioners before this Court is that there was no condition in the advertisement nor does it exist in the rules, known as The Uttarakhand Transport (Subordinate) Technical Service Rules, 2009 that a candidate must have three years experience after the diploma. Therefore, argument of the petitioners would be that the insistence that such an experience must be of after diploma is totally arbitrary and hence violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioners relied upon several judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court such as Anil Kumar Gupta and others v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others, 2000 AIR(SC) 659 and Subhash s/o Shriram Dhonde v. State of Maharashtra and Another, 1995 Supp3 SCC 332, where in similar circumstances, such a situation was held to be arbitrary as there was no stipulated condition that a candidate must have experience after he has obtained diploma and the experience the candidate has obtained even prior to the diploma held to be proper experience. The writ petitions are liable to be allowed and are hereby allowed.
(2.) At this stage, learned counsel for the Commission Mr. B.D. Kandpal states that although there were interim orders of this Court directing the respondents to keep seats vacant for the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition, but even before such interim orders could be passed the result has already been declared and out of total 15 seats of Assistant Regional Instructor (Technical), 3 seats of general category, 3 seats of scheduled caste category and 2 seats of other backward class category have not been filled up and consequently they have been carried forward.
(3.) Since admittedly seats are presently vacant, the direction is hereby given to the Commission to make such recommendations to the State for appointments of the petitioners and thereafter State shall make such appointments in compliance of this order, as this Court is clearly of the view that denial/rejecting the selection of the petitioners on the said posts is totally arbitrary. However, this is subject to the fact that in case the Commission had placed a minimum cut-off marks, all the petitioners must have marks above the said minimum cut-off marks. Subject to the above, writ petitions stand allowed. No order as to costs.;

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