- (1.) V. K. Gupta, C. J. Mr. Alok Singh, Senior Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent No. 1. Mr. B. D. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B. D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
(2.) THE only controversy involved in this case is as to whether reservation of 20% available to women in the selection for Uttaranchal Judicial Services was confined to woman candidates belong ing to Uttaranchal State or was it avail able to all such woman candidates of the country who were otherwise eligible. THE undisputed and un-controverted facts of this case are as under :- Uttaranchal Public Service Com mission invited applications for various posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) for the Examination-2005 vide an advertise ment issued and published in the News papers on 16th February, 2006. The last date for the receipt of application forms was 20th March, 2006. In the advertise ment it was clearly mentioned that against the total 50 number of available vacancies, following vacancies were in the reserved category : i. Scheduled Castes : 9 ii. Scheduled Tribes : 2 iii. Other Backward Classes : 7 Apart from the aforesaid 18 reserved vacancies, the advertisement also clearly stated that as per applicable Govern ment Orders, reservation with respect to other classes would also be available. The petitioner applied, citing her self as a woman belonging to Uttaranchal State and claiming reserva tion in the served category of woman" candidates. Communication No.-1144/karmic-2-2001- 53 (l)/2001 dated 18th July, 2001, whereas in para (1) thereof specified and allocated res ervation at 19%, 04% and 14% respec tively for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, in para (2) thereof, it clearly stated that as far as women, ex-servicemen, disabled persons and the dependents of freedom fighters are concerned, there shall be an allo cated reservation of 20%, 2%, 3% and 2% respectively. The petitioner having applied and gone through the selection process first underwent preliminary ex amination, thereafter, the main exami nation and finally the viva voce. In the final select list published and issued by the Commission, the petitioner's name figured in serial number 2 in order of merit but despite this she was not se lected. Her name was not recommended by the Commission to the Government for appointment only on the ground that she was not a bona fide resident of Uttarakhand State and because the res ervation in the category of "woman" candidates was available only on the Uttarakhand State women residents and not the woman candidates belonging States other than Uttarakhand. Reliance in support of this submission was placed on communication number 1968/ XXX (2)/2006 dated 24th July, 2006.
(3.) THERE is no doubt that the peti tioner has been wronged, discriminated against and treated arbitrarily. We have no doubt whatsoever in our minds that as far as the reservation in the category of woman candidates is concerned, it was available to all woman candidates in the country and it was not confined to the woman candidates who were resident of Uttarakhand State. Communi cation dated 24th July, 2006 (Supra) in para (1) thereof did make a reference to the communication dated 18th July, 2001 (Supra) but it incorrectly and wrongly stated that the 18th July, 2001 communication had mentioned only Uttaranchal women candidates for be ing included in the 20% reservation cat egory. We have very carefully seen the communication dated 18th July, 2001 and found that very unambiguously it created a category of woman candidates for providing 20% reservation in their favour. This communication did not at all anywhere specify, lay down or pro vide that the woman candidates for being eligible to avail 20% reservation should be belonging to or be residents of Uttarakhand State. As far as commu nication dated 24th July, 2006 is con cerned, after wrongly mentioning the aforesaid fact in para (1), at para (2) even though it increased the women's reservation from 20% to 30% and for the first time did indicate and mention about the woman belonging to Uttaranchal State, it also at the same time clearly stated that this 10% increase in reservation with respect to the woman candidates belonging to Uttaranchal State shall not be applicable in such cases where the selection process has already begun and the advertisements have been published before the issuance of this communication. As we have noticed at the out set, because the advertisement in the present case was published in the News papers on 16th February, 2006 and ac tually the last date for submission of the application forms was 20th March, 2006 and because the aforesaid communica tion was issued on 24th July, 2006, this was not at all applicable to the present selection process. Because the 24th July, 2006 communication is not at all appli cable to the present case we are not called upon to decide and. determine the validity on the constitutional vires of the stipulation contained in para (2) thereof, vis that the benefit of 30% reservation shall be available only to such woman candidates who belong to Uttaranchal State. Since this issue does not arise or fall for our consideration in this case, we refrain from offering any comment, giv ing any view or expressing any option on the subject.;