Shivani Saini & Another vs State Of Uttarakhand & Another

Manoj Kumar Gupta, CJ

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.11.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1692 of 2024, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed, as also the order dated 17.06.2026, whereby Miscellaneous Application (MCC No.03 of 2025), filed by the appellants seeking recall of the order dated 19.11.2025, has also been dismissed.

The dispute arose out of the recruitment exercise undertaken by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") for appointment to the post of Junior Engineers in different engineering disciplines under the Uttarakhand Combined State Junior Engineer Service Examination, 2023. The Commission issued a detailed advertisement dated 14.10.2023 inviting applications for recruitment to various posts of Junior Engineers in Civil, Mechanical, Electrical and Agricultural Engineering Departments under different establishments of the State.

Appellant No.1 submitted application claiming benefit of vertical reservation under OBC category and also horizontal reservation as physically challenged person under PwD category. Appellant No.2 submitted application as a General category candidate, but he also sought the benefit of horizontal reservation under PwD category.

As per the recruitment scheme, selection was to be made solely through a written examination (objective type). The written examination was conducted between 23.12.2023 and 27.12.2023. The total marks, on basis of which, candidates were assessed were 920. Petitioner No.1 secured 112.0326 marks, which is 12.1774 percent of the total marks. Petitioner No.2 obtained 89.4874 marks, which is 9.7269 percent of the total marks. After evaluation of answer scripts, the Commission issued a notification dated 23.02.2024 publishing a list of candidates called for document verification. There were twelve posts reserved for the PwD category and according to the Commission, all candidates belonging to the said category were called for document verification. The marks of the last candidate called for document verification in PwD (HH/ PD) category were 43.8732 and accordingly, the same was notified as the cut-off marks for the PwD category in the notification dated 23.02.2024, issued by the Commission in respect of the candidates called for document verification. The names of the appellants were duly included in the said list. According to the Commission, the selection process was held in accordance with the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Regulations, 2022. Under Regulation 13 thereof, where the selection is held solely on basis of written examination, the cut-off marks for the vertical reservation and sub-categories (horizontal reservation) was 45% for the general category, 40% for OBC category, 40% for economically backward class, 35% for Scheduled Caste and 35% for Scheduled Tribes.

After the document verification, the Commission held a meeting on 01.03.2024 and in the said meeting, it decided to amend the Regulations and prescribe 30% as cut-off marks for Divyangjan candidates and 35% for dependants of freedom fighters and ex-service men. Accordingly, the Regulations were amended by the Fourth Amendment, 2024 and it was duly circulated on the website by way of Office Order No.193, dated 11.03.2024.

As the appellants had secured marks much less than the cut-off marks prescribed under the Regulations, they were declared unsuccessful. The case of the appellants was that the requirement regarding cut-off marks was prescribed by the Commission for the first time on 11.03.2024 by the Fourth Amendment, 2024, i.e. after the written examination had been conducted, thereby materially altering the conditions of selection. The contention of the appellants was that no such stipulation formed part of the recruitment advertisement and, therefore, the Commission was not entitled to impose such a condition at a later stage. It was further pleaded that once the appellants had already been included in the document verification list, their exclusion from the final selection by applying a subsequently introduced benchmark was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The Commission contested the writ petition by filing counter-affidavit. It set up the case that the concept of minimum qualifying marks was not introduced for the first time, as contended by the appellants, by the Fourth Amendment, 2024, but it already formed part of the original Regulations, 2022. Reference was also made to the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Regulations, 2012, as amended on 01.07.2013, to contend that the qualifying benchmarks even formed part of the earlier statutory framework. The Regulations, 2022, which replaced the Regulations, 2012, only continued the same statutory framework. According to the Commission, the amendment dated 11.03.2024, in fact, relaxed the benchmarks prescribed for various categories, including Divyangjan candidates. Thus, according to the Commission, the amendment carried out on 11.03.2024 was, in fact, beneficial, since the benchmark prescribed for Divyangjan candidates was further lowered. The Commission also pleaded that mere inclusion of the name of the appellants in the document verification list did not confer any vested right in their favour, as the said exercise was only an intermediate stage in the recruitment process and not declaration of final result of the recruitment.

The learned Single Judge, taking into consideration the stand taken by the Commission that the appellants had failed to secure the benchmark prescribed for PwD category candidates, dismissed the writ petition. The Recall Application (MCC No.03 of 2025) filed by the appellants was also dismissed, holding that under the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Rules, 2012, as amended on 01.07.2013, the prescribed cut-off marks for PwD candidates was 45%, and the Commission only lowered the said benchmark to 30% by the amendment carried out in the Regulations on 11.03.2024. As appellant no.1 had secured merely 12.1774% marks and appellant no.2 secured only 9.7269% marks in the written examination, therefore, they were rightly not selected.

Learned counsel for the appellants contended that when the recruitment advertisement was issued, no minimum qualifying marks for Divyangjan candidates were prescribed. The appellants were, therefore, duly included in the document verification list. It was only by way of amendment made to the Regulations on 11.03.2024 that the Commission prescribed cut-off marks of 30% for Divyangjan category and thereby it altered the conditions of selection midstream, which was not permissible under law. He placed reliance on the Constitution Bench Judge of the Supreme Court in "Tej Prakash Pathak & others vs. Rajasthan High Court & others, Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013", in support of his submission.

Per contra, learned counsel for the Commission submitted that the concept of qualifying benchmark was not introduced for the first time in 2024, but it was very much in existence under the original Regulations, 2022. He further submitted that even under the earlier statutory regime, i.e. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Regulations, 2012, by amendment dated 01.07.2013, the concept of minimum qualifying marks had already been introduced. The cut-off marks of 45%/ 40%/ 35% were prescribed for the unreserved and social reservation categories and sub-categories, and the 2022 Regulations only continued the same statutory framework. He further contended that mere inclusion of name of the appellants in the list for document verification, where a much larger number of candidates were called provisionally, did not result in creation of any vested right in favour of the appellants. It was submitted that the Commission had applied the criteria of cut-off marks uniformly for all the candidates. He, accordingly, submitted that the writ petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

It is well settled that the rules governing a recruitment process cannot ordinarily be altered after commencement to the prejudice of the participating candidates. However, the question in the present special appeal is whether there has, at all, been any change in the rules of the game, and if so, whether such change, in any manner, adversely affected the appellants.

For answering the said question, we first deal with the statutory framework that was in place. Selection and recruitment to public offices in the State were earlier held as per the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Regulations, 2012, as amended from time-to-time. Thereunder, different modes of selection were prescribed, namely, (i) selection on basis of written screening test followed by main examination; (ii) selection on basis of written examination only, and; (iii) selection through interview only. Regulation 4.2.2(c) dealt with selection on basis of written examination only, as is the case at hand. Initially, no cut-off was prescribed for any category/ sub- category, but subsequently, by amendment dated 01.07.2013 (First Amendment, 2013), 45% cut-off marks were prescribed for the unreserved category, 40% for OBC, and 35% for SC/ST. The amendment specifically provided that for sub- categories under General category and OBC category, i.e. categories falling under the horizontal reservation, the same cut-off as prescribed for the main category would apply. The provision, after amendment, reads as follows:-

On 26.05.2015, Third Amendment to Regulations, 2012 was notified and thereunder, the following provision was made under Clause 4.2.2 (c) in respect of selection based on written examinations only:-

On 20.08.2016, Fourth Amendment, 2016 was notified, where certain amendments were again made, but Regulation 4.2.2 (c), which dealt with selection on basis of written examinations only, remained unchanged. Even, by these amendments, though not applicable to selection at hand, no amendment was made to the prescribed cut-off marks for selection by the other modes. The reliance placed by the appellants on the said amendment, through the recall application filed before the learned Single Judge, was, therefore, misconceived.

The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Regulations, 2012 were replaced by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Regulations, 2022 vide notification dated 15.07.2022. Regulation 3(4) prescribes the manner, in which, the vacancies of the sub-category Divyangjan are to be identified. It reads as follows:-

Regulation 4 relates to vertical and horizontal reservations and the manner, in which, social and horizontal reservations are to be applied. The relevant provision relating to horizontal reservation specifically provides that a person belonging to any horizontal category would be placed in his social reservation category as per the provisions of Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh Public Service Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependants of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Bill, 1993 and Uttarakhand Adaptation and Modification Order, 2002, the relevant part of which is as follows:-

Regulation 13 deals with the procedure to be followed for preparing the final result of any selection held on basis of written examination only and it provides as follows:-

A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provision reveals that expression 'sub-category' has been used in the Regulations to denote the horizontal categories within each main category. Thus, for PwD candidates under unreserved category (URC), under which, appellant no.1 applied, the cut-off was 45%. For PwD candidates under OBC category, under which, appellant no.2 applied, the cut-off provided was 40%. By the Fourth Amendment, 2024 to Regulations 2022, issued on 11.03.2024, the Commission contemplated a further relaxation in the horizontal reservation for various sub- categories, at the same time providing for different cut-offs for different sub-categories, namely, dependants of freedom fighters, ex-servicemen and PwDs', which hitherto was uniform, by seeking to add proviso to Regulations 9 to 13. The notification dated 11.03.2024 reads as follows:-

Regulations 9 and 10 provide for the procedure for preparation of result of the screening test and the main written examination where selection is based on screening test and main written examination; Regulation 11 provides for selection based on written examination followed by interview; Regulation 12 provides for selection based on interview alone, and; Regulation 13 provides for selection based on written examination only. However, it appears that while setting out the statutory provision to be incorporated in these Regulations, the actual proviso intended to be incorporated in Regulation 13 has been omitted. Nevertheless, the legislative intent underlying the Fourth Amendment, 2024 is clearly discernible from Regulation 2 thereof. What is significant is that the afore-said amendment to the concerned Regulations, 2022, merely lowered the cut-off marks for the sub-categories already recognized under the Original Regulations, 2022. Instead of a uniform cut-off, separate and lower cut-offs came to be prescribed for different sub-categories, namely, dependants of freedom fighters, ex-servicemen and persons with disabilities.

The advertisement, in the present case, was issued on 14.10.2023. Instruction No.7 of the said advertisement reads as follows:-

"(7) Candidates are advised to refer to Appendix-1 for the list of cities for conducting the written examination (objective type); Appendix-2 for the examination scheme and syllabus; Appendix-3 for the prescribed format of certificates relating to reservation; Appendix-4 for minimum qualifying marks; Appendix-5 for the guidelines governing provision of scribe and other facilities to candidates with disabilities of more than 40%; Appendix-6 for the guidelines governing provision of scribe and other facilities to candidates with disabilities of less than 40%; and Appendix-7 for the format of the experience certificate required for the post of Junior Engineer in Uttarakhand Renewable Energy Development Agency (UREDA)."

Appendix-4 to the advertisement is as follows:-

It is noteworthy that Appendix 4 specifically stipulates that the minimum cut-off marks prescribed therein, were in accordance with the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Exam Result Preparation Procedure Regulations, 2022, as amended from time-to-time and which candidates were required to secure for consideration of their names in the merit list. Thus, it prescribed a cut-off of 45% for the unreserved category and all sub-categories falling thereunder, including PwD, and 40% for the OBC category, and sub-categories falling thereunder.

The amendment dated 11.03.2024 prescribed distinct cut-off for different sub-categories, which had hitherto been uniform. More importantly, the amendment resulted in further lowering of the cut-off as compared to that prescribed earlier, which even the appellants failed to achieve. In absence of any prejudice, the doctrine that rules of the game cannot be changed midstream, would have no application.

Even if, for the sake of argument, the applicability of the amended Regulations is excluded and the original Regulations as in force on the date of issuance of the advertisement are applied, the appellants would still not have secured the requisite cut-off marks. Mere inclusion of the name of the appellants in the list notified for document verification, where the Commission had called the candidates provisionally, would not confer any indefeasible right to the selection. Final selection necessarily remains subject to fulfillment of all statutory requirements. A provisional list for document verification cannot override the statutory regulations. The Commission was, therefore, fully justified in not including the name of the appellants in the final select list, as the marks obtained by the appellants in the written examination were far below the prescribed cut-off marks.

Accordingly, we find no illegality in the order of the learned Single Judge.

The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.