Ashish Kumar and Others vs State of Uttarakhand and Others

Nirmal Yadav, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. The abovementioned both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment as these petitions are arising out of same controversy.

Vide advertisement dated 21st November 2008 (Annexure-1) applications were invited for direct recruitment of 24 posts of Forest Guards (Van Arakshi) in Rajaji National Park Dehradun. The Petitioners applied for the same. They appeared in the written test and qualified the same. Thereafter, they appeared for the physical test. The Petitioners have now challenged the advertisement dated 13th March 2010 published in daily newspaper on 17.03.2010 (Annexure-4) by which the entire selection process has been cancelled for certain reasons.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioners contended that the cancellation of the result is arbitrary, unreasonable and against the principles of natural justice and seeks direction for quashing the advertisement dated 13th March 2010 published in daily newspaper on 17.03.2010 (Annexure-4) by which the entire selection process has been cancelled.

In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondents it has been submitted that as per sub-Rule 5 of Rule 15 of the Uttarakhand (U.P. Subordinate Service Rules, 1980) (Adaptation and Modification Order 2002) (Amendment) Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred as the Rules) it is provided that only after the candidates, having passed or found suitable in the physical test, shall be entitled to appear in the written examination. However, in the selection process, written examination was conducted earlier and thereafter, the candidates were called for the physical test. It is further pleaded that some candidates, who had applied for the said posts, filed W.P. (SS) No. 147 of 2010 challenging the selection process stating therein that the same was done in violation of the Rule referred to above. Accordingly, entire selection process was cancelled and new advertisement dated 13th March 2010 was published in this regard.

Taking into consideration the overall aspects of the matter and provisions as specified in sub-Rule 5 of Rule 15 of the Rules the process of direct recruitment for filling up the posts of Forest Guards is to be made on the basis of competitive examination, however, it is also laid down that physical test was to be conducted prior to the written examination, but the same has not been followed. Since the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules, the authorities have cancelled the same. In the counter affidavit, it is submitted that since there was mistake on the part of the authorities, they rectified the mistake by cancelling the entire selection process.

In view of the fact that the selection process was conducted in violation of the statutory Rules, the same was cancelled. I find no merit in the writ petitions and the same are dismissed.