SANTOSH KUMAR JUYAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

K.M. JOSEPH, C.JÂ Â Â Â

 Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:Â

“(i) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Clause-8(d) of the Advertisement dated 11.03.2011of the combined State

Civil/Upper Subordinate Services Examination-2010, wherein the 10% horizontal reservation has been provided to the Uttarakhand Rajya Anolankaris

in the selection process, as the same is in violation of the Article 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.Â

 (ii) Issue a Writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the communication dated 23.12.2013 of the govt. of Uttarakhand

Department of Personnel whereby the commission has been directed to with held the result of the vacancies identified for Uttarakhand Rajya

Anodolankaris in the PCS Examination 2010. Â

(iii) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the clause in the Final Select List of the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/

Upper Subordinate Services Examination-2010, whereby 03 vacancies of the post of Commercial Tax Officer available for the general/open

category has been retained for Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankaris.

(iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to recommend the name

of the next 03 candidates of the open category for appointment on the post of Commercial Tax Officer, who are below the last selected

candidate in the open category against the posts withheld for Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankaris.Â

(v) Issue a writ or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to recommend the name of the candidates against the remaining

vacancies of the advertised 61 vacancies of the post of Commercial Tax Officer pursuant to the amended advertisement dated

04.07.2012.â€​  Â

Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission vide Annexure No. 1 advertisement dated 11.03.2011 called for applications for various posts. Petitioner

belongs to general category. He applied for five posts. Petitioner participated in the preliminary examination. On 23.08.2014, on the basis of

the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination, the list was prepared for the post of Commercial Tax Officer, the post with which

alone we are concerned. 45 candidates were selected in various categories/sub-categories.Â

Petitioner has also given preference for the post of Commercial Tax Officer. There is reference to a note below the select list for the post of

Commercial Tax Officer mentioning that out of the 49 vacancies of the Commercial Tax Officer, the result of 03 vacancies (General/Uttarakhand

Rajya Andolankaris) will be subject to the final decision to be passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011. Cut-off marks were published. It is

the case of the petitioner that three posts of General category could not have been illegally retained under 10% horizontal reservation for Uttarakhand

Rajya Andolankari and if that had not been done, the name of the petitioner could have been recommended against the said three posts. There is

also reference to Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011 in this matter. There is a clause in the advertisement dated 11.03.2011 for giving 10%

horizontal reservation to Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankaris. There is reference to a litigation in regard to the said clause relating to reservation for

Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankaris. Pleadings have been exchanged.   Â

We heard Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. J.C. Pande, learned Brief Holder on behalf of the State of

Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned counsel on behalf of respondent no. 4.

There is no dispute that as far as Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011 is concerned, it has attained finality as far as this Court is concerned. One

learned Judge of this Court took the view that reservation is bad in law. Another learned Judge, who heard the matter, took a different view and the

matter was, thereafter, referred to the third learned Judge (Justice Lok Pal Singh). The third learned Judge agreed with the view that the

reservation is bad in law and, accordingly, the orders in this regard were quashed. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner drew our

attention to the note whereunder it is stated as follows:

“Note: 03 posts of General/Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari and 01 post of Other Backward Class/ Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari will be

subject to the final decision of Hon’ble High Court or Hon’ble Supreme Court to be passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011.â€​

Even, we do notice that the petitioner has approached this Court after having participated in the selection process and after conclusion of the

written examination and he also challenges the advertisement. In the light of the fact that the selection body itself has proceeded with the matter

taking cognizance of the pendency of the Public Interest Litigation and making the selection in regard to three posts of General /Uttarakhand Rajya

Andolankari and one post of Other Backward Class/Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari, inter alia, subject to the final decision of the Hon’ble High

Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court to be passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011 and since a decision has been rendered by a Full Bench

of this Court, though by majority of 2:1, the matter must necessarily be processed and considered further in the light of the said judgment.Â

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by directing that the Commission will consider the matter and take a decision in the matter in relation to

the three posts of Commercial Tax Officer in the light of the judgment rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 67 of 2011

and do the needful as per law. A decision will be taken in this regard at the earliest and every effort will be made to conclude the process within a

period of 10 weeks from today.Â