Km. Nisha vs State of Uttarakhand and Another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Sri M.S. Tyagi, Advocate for the Petitioner as well as Sri N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel present for the State of Uttarakhand.

The Petitioner was a candidate for an examination conducted by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for recruitment to the post of Lower Division Assistant/Upper Division Assistant. The Petitioner is a female candidate belonging to Other Backward Class category. She duly filled the form relating to her gender and her caste claiming reservation for O.B.C. category. All the same, there was another column i.e. column No. 12 for those claiming horizontal reservation for female candidates belonging to Uttarakhand. The Petitioner, however, did not fill this column as Uttarakhand woman. In other words, she declined to be considered as a female candidate of Uttarakhand for which there was a horizontal reservation. She, however, appeared in preliminary examination and qualified for the main examination. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri M.S. Tyagi has asserted that the Petitioner has now appeared in the main examination as well. Meanwhile, when the Petitioner realized her mistake that she had inadvertently declined to exercise her option as a candidate of Uttarakhand female category, she represented before the authorities, which was rejected. Therefore, the Petitioner was constrained to file a writ petition before this Court seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner as an O.B.C. candidate belonging to Uttarakhand female category.

Be that as it may, a learned Single Judge of this Court in a similar controversy in (Writ Petition (S/S) No. 244 of 2010 Km. Shalini Dadar v. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and Writ Petition (S/S) No. 313 of 2010 Yamini Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr.) pertaining to the same examination has held that since the Petitioner refused to exercise her choice as a female candidate, no relief can be granted to her, by the Court.

The said Petitioner went in special appeal before a Division Bench of this Court. The special appeal was also dismissed and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld. In short, the contention of the Petitioner has been rejected. Since the facts of the present case are squarely covered by these two decisions, no interference is called for by this Court. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 76 of 2010 Yamini Joshi v. State of Uttarakhand and Anr., writ petition is dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Interim order, if any, stands vacated.