Rohit Kumar vs Uttarakhand Board Of Technical Education And Others

Vipin Sanghi, CJ

Though, there is delay of 98 days in preferring the present Special Appeal, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits.

The present Special Appeal is directed against the judgment dated 29.03.2022 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3575 of 2017. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Writ Petition preferred by the appellant.

The appellant had responded to an advertisement inviting applications for the post of Electrician Mechanic, which, in the advertisement, was shown as reserved for the dependents of Freedom Fighters (DFF). The advertisement was issued in the year 2015. The appellant, being a dependent of Freedom Fighter, applied for the said post, but was not selected. The appellant assailed the selection of respondent no. 3 on the ground that he was not a dependent of Freedom Fighter.

The respondents, in their counter affidavit, disclosed that the post was, in fact, requisitioned to be filled by an ex-serviceman. However, there was a mistake in the advertisement, as issued, and, therefore, the post could not be claimed by the appellant merely because there was an error in the advertisement, which stated that the post is reserved for dependent of Freedom Fighter.

The learned Single Judge has accepted the stand of the respondents, and dismissed the Writ Petition.

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant before us again is that the respondents did not bring the requisition issued by the parent department in public light, and did not issue a corrigendum, amending the advertisement, to state that the post is reserved for an ex-serviceman. He further submits that no ex-serviceman was found qualified and the post was not given to an ex-serviceman.

Even if the post was not given to an ex-serviceman, and it was given to a general category candidate, that would not give a right to the appellant to stake his claim as a dependent of Freedom Fighter. The grievance, if at all, could be raised by an ex-serviceman category candidate, or somebody, who could have participated in the competition in that category, had the advertisement been correctly published initially, or through a corrigendum. So far as the appellant is concerned, he possibly could have no grievance.

We, therefore, do not find any merit in the present Special Appeal, and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

Since we do not find any merit in the present Special Appeal, we are not getting into the issue of condonation of delay.

In sequel thereto, all pending applications stand disposed of.