Bhupendra Singh Rawat & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Petitioners participated in a selection held by U.P. Public Service Commission, before State Reorganisation. The said selection was for vacancies in the hill sub-cadre. The result of the selection was also declared before State Reorganisation, in which, petitioners were declared successful for the post of Principal, Government Intermediate Colleges.

By means of this writ petition, petitioners have sought the following reliefs:-

“1- a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record of the case and quash the order dated 11.10.2018 Contained in Annexure No. 14 to the Writ petition.

2- a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner in the light of the letter of the central government dated 10.3.2014, 27.2.2015 & 13.1.2016 and the order dated 29.8.2018 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in civil appeal no. 8336-8337 of 2011 Krishan Kumar Madan and others V/s Ashok Kumar and Others.”

Annexure No.-14 to the writ petition is an order dated 11.10.2018 passed by Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand, whereby representation made by the petitioners for seeking joining in State of Uttarakhand was rejected.

Perusal of the rejection order dated 11.10.2018 reveals that the Secretary to the Government has referred to the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and others v. Sidharth Srivastava and others, reported in (2003) 9 SCC 336.

We are not inclined to interfere in the matter. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has held that recommendations made by U.P. Public Service Commission for appointment against vacancies in hill-sub cadre is not binding upon Government of Uttarakhand. Paragraph no. 29 of the said judgment is reproduced below:-

“29. There is no difficulty in accepting the principles laid down in the cases of Shankarsan Dash [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17 ATC 95] and Asha Kaul [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24 ATC 576] . But the High Court failed to apply those principles correctly to the facts of the present cases. As stated by the High Court, it is settled law that a candidate whose name is included in the select list does not get indefeasible right for appointment on the basis of the recommendations made by the Public Service Commission, but at the same time the Government has no absolute right to reject the recommendations and refuse appointment to the candidates recommended without a valid and reasonable ground for not accepting the recommenda-tions of U.P. PSC. The High Court found that the reasons given in the government order dated 29-8-2001 were not valid reasons for not accepting the recommendations of U.P. PSC. While discussing whether the recommendations of U.P. PSC are binding on the State Government of Uttaranchal, keeping in view the constitutional provisions and in particular, Section 78(4) of the Act, we have already expressed above that the recommendations of U.P. PSC are not binding to compel the State of Uttaranchal to give appointments to the candidates recommended by U.P. PSC. It is not possible to accept the view of the High Court that the reasons given in government order dated 29 -8-2001 are not valid. On the other hand, we find that the reasons given in the said order are valid and reasonable. At any rate it cannot be said that the State of Uttaranchal arbitrarily or whimsically refused to give appointments to the selected candidates”.

In view of the law declared by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, the reliefs as claimed by petitioners cannot be granted.

The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Competent Authority in State of Uttar Pradesh.