Madhusudan Sati vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Lok Pal Singh, J

Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:-

i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the roll nos.850259 (Deepa Shakta), 851432 (Deepa Pathak), 853313 (Eda Arya), 850478 (Madhumita Kapkoti), 851052 (Neetu Singh) and 853203 (Km. Parul) as women candidate for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) as they have already been selected in the category of women candidates in the list of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in State of Uttarakhand and delete their name from the list of general category candidates for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit).

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to publish a fresh select list in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 04.09.2018.

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to reserve a post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) for the petitioner till the disposal of this writ petition.

The case of the petitioner is that on 4.09.2018 an advertisement was issued by respondent no.2, inviting applications for the post of 782 Lecturers in various subjects including Lecturer (Sanskrit) in general and women category. Out of these total 782 posts, there were 51 posts of Lecturer (Sanskrit); out of which 10 posts were earmarked for Scheduled Caste; 03 posts for Scheduled Tribe, 07 posts for Other Backward Classes and 31 posts were unreserved and further 12 posts were reserved for women category. Pursuant to the said advertisement, petitioner submitted his application form and thereafter appeared in the written examination. Result of the general category and women category was declared on 11.02.2019. On 08.05.2019, women candidates were called for interview for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) and the result was declared on 23.05.2019 showing the roll numbers viz. 850259 (Deepa Shakta), 851432 (Deepa Pathak), 853313 (Eda Arya), 850478 (Madhumita Kapkoti), 851052 (Neetu Singh) and 853203 (Km. Parul) as the successful candidates for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in women category. Thereafter, on 29.05.2019, general category candidates were called for interview, wherein the above-named women candidates were again called for interview in the general category. On 26.06.2019, list of marks obtained by general category candidates for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) was displayed in the website in which the petitioner was shown at serial no.32 and he obtained 71 marks. After the interview, final list of 50 selected candidates for the post of Lecturer (Sanskrit) in general category was uploaded in the website in which six women candidates named above were shown selected as they obtained more marks than the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the above-named female candidates, who has been declared successful, has occupied vacancies in both the categories i.e. in Uttarakhand Women category as well as in General category, due to which the petitioner has been deprived of being selected in the general category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is at serial no.32 of the merit list and if names of these women candidates are not included in the general category by the Commission, the petitioner would get a chance to be selected against the posts earmarked for general category for Lecturer (Sanskrit). Learned counsel would contend that if any candidate of the women category is selected in the said category, she cannot be selected again in general category.

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 would submit that there is a provision of preparing a waiting list, and in the case the petitioner finds place in the waiting list and any vacancy remains unfilled against the general category, his case for appointment will be considered by the respondent no.2.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the entire material available on file, in the opinion of the Court, no mandamus can be issued to the respondents directing them to give appointment to the above-named candidates in Uttarakhand Female (UF) Category. So far as the claim of the petitioner for appointment against the general category is concerned, it has been stated by counsel for respondent no.2 that there is always a provision of preparing waiting list and if the petitioner finds place in the waiting list and any advertised vacancy remains unfilled during the life span of said waiting list, his case will be considered.

With the aforesaid observation, writ petition stands disposed of finally. No order as to costs.