Arun Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Pankaj Purohit, J

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has come up before this Court seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the result of driving test dated 12.03.2024 (Annexure No.5) issued by respondent no.2, and with a further prayer to direct for a fair and impartial enquiry by a competent agency/ authority about the driving test held on 23.01.2024 at Institute of Driving and Traffic Research (Uttarakhand) Jhajhra, Chakrata Road, Dehradun.

It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that pursuant the advertisement dated 24.08.2021 (Annexure No.1), the respondent-Commission invited applications for supplying vacancies of Drivers in different Departments within the State of Uttarakhand. It is the case of petitioner that he participated in the selection process, and in written examination, he secured 11 marks out of 25. He also submits that having been qualified in the written examination, he participated in the driving test which he also passed successfully but despite that, he was not offered appointment.

On the previous date i.e. 02.04.2024, instructions were called in the matter. Today, learned Counsel for the Commission is ready with the instructions, which are taken on record. According to the said instructions, it appears that the petitioner secured total 53.42 marks out of 100 while the last selected candidate in the S.C. category secured 53.875 marks out of 100, and thus, petitioner who secured lesser marks was denied appointment.

I have perused the writ petition along with its annexures. From a perusal of advertisement, it is clear that for the purpose of selection, examination of 100 marks was to be conducted by the Commission out of which 25 marks are prescribed for written test whereas 75 marks have been earmarked for driving test. From the instructions, it is borne out that the last selected candidate in the S.C. category, namely, Deep Lal secured more marks than the petitioner, a S.C. category candidate, therefore, he has rightly been selected and the petitioner was accordingly denied the appointment.

I find no infirmity in the selection process adopted by respondent-Commission. No ground for interference is made out. The petition lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed at the threshold.

There would be no order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of as such.