Preeti & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

The present special appeal is directed against the judgment dated 02.09.2022, rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.420 of 2021, preferred by the appellants. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition.

The case of the appellants was that they had participated in the recruitment process conducted by the respondent- Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission for appointment to the post of Village Panchayat Development Officer in District Uttarkashi. Though, their names were initially shown in the select list, the same were subsequently removed in the light of the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3820 of 2018. The case of the appellants was that they were not made parties to the said writ petition, and that judgment was passed behind their back.

The admitted position is that the appellants belong to the general category. They are both women and, therefore, entitled to offer their candidature against four general category posts, as well as four posts reserved for women belonging to the general category. It appears that one Ms. Ranjita Rana, which belonged to the OBC category, was aggrieved by the fact that in the merit list issued by the respondent, her name was not included against the general category posts, even though she was more meritorious than other candidates, who included the appellants, and were shown in the merit list. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by Ms. Ranjita Rana, being Writ Petition (S/S) No.3820 of 2018, on 29.03.2019. The learned Single Judge noticed several decisions of the Supreme Court wherein it was held that a reserved category candidate cannot be excluded from consideration against the general category post, if such candidate is more meritorious, and is in a position to secure a general category post on his/her own merit, and that such a candidate would be adjusted against the general category post. Therefore, merely because Ms. Ranjita Rana belonged to the OBC category, she could not be excluded from being considered against the general category post. The decision of the learned Single Judge dated 29.03.2019 was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.473 of 2019, preferred by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission & another, vide judgment dated 10.09.2019. As a result of the directions issued by this Court, the respondents re-casted the merit list, which led ouster of the appellants.

The admitted position is that the candidates who were selected against the general category posts reserved for women, secured more marks than either of the appellants. Whereas, the last such candidate secured 53.75 marks, the appellant No.1 secured 53.25 marks, and the appellant No.2 secured 49.25 marks in the examination. Thus, there is no candidate who has secured less mark than the appellants, and stands selected in the recruitment process.

The submission of Ms. Prabha Naithani, learned counsel for the appellants is that the appellants were not made parties in the aforesaid writ proceedings. In our view, it was not necessary for the writ petitioner- Ms. Ranjita Rana, to implead the appellants. She was aggrieved by the incorrect procedure adopted by the respondent- Commission in preparation of the merit list. She had no grievance against the appellants. The writ proceedings were contested by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission and they even preferred the special appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge. It is not that the appellants could have advanced any submission, which would make a difference to the decisions rendered by the learned Single Judge, as well as by the Division Bench of this Court, which are premised in several decisions of the Supreme Court. Even before us, Ms. Naithani does not say how the judgments rendered in Writ Petition (S/S) No.3820 of 2018 and Special Appeal No.473 of 2019 are unsustainable, or need reconsideration.

Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that the recruitment process was undertaken district-wise, and the appellants were concerned only with Uttarkashi district. In relation of other districts, there was no similar challenge, and the merit lists were prepared and given effect to in the same manner, as was initially prepared for Uttarkashi district. Thus, discrimination is alleged by the appellants. There is no concept of “negative equality” in law. So far as District Uttarkashi is concerned, the illegality committed by the respondent- Commission was corrected by this Court, as that matter was brought before the Court. If the authorities continued to perpetuate the illegality in relation to other districts, the appellants cannot seek to take advantage of that.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in this special appeal, and the same is, hereby, dismissed.