Dismissed

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Uttarakhand HC10 May 2019WPSS/655/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the preparation of separate merit lists for Review Officer and Assistant Review Officer posts. The Court upheld the Public Service Commission's action under Rule 8(e) as consistent with differing qualifications and directed the declaration of petitioners' results.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners' result declared for Assistant Review Officer post if suitable as per merit list; other writ petitions dismissed.

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari Vs State Of Uttarakhand and… — Service and Employment | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

WPSS No. 374 of 2018 with WPSS No. 1349 of 2017 with WPSS No. 1621 of 2017 with WPSS No. 2153 of 2017 With WPSS No. 2168 of 2017 with WPSS No. 2513 of 2017 with WPSS No. 2587 of 2017 with WPSS No. 655 of 2018

¶2

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶3

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶4

Mr. M.C. Tewari, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand/ respondent no. 1 & 2

¶5

Mr. B.D. Kandpal & Mr. Akshay Latwal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocates for respondent no. 3.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶7

Since common question of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore are being taken up together and are being adjudicated by this common judgment. However, for the sake of clarity, facts of WPSS No. 374 of 2018 are being considered.

¶8

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission notified 125 vacancies on the post of Review Officer and 56 vacancies on the post of Assistant Review Officer, total 181 vacancies, in Uttarakhand Secretariat and Uttarakhand Public Service Commission vide advertisement dated 05.04.2016. As per the advertisement, minimum qualification required was graduation from any University established by law with Hindi typing speed of 4000 key depression per hour on computer, except the post of Review Officer in Public Service Commission for which there was no requirement of Hindi typing on computer. For the post of Review Officer in Uttarakhand Secretariat, preference was to be given to those who have

¶9

English typing speed of 8000 key depression per hour on computer.

¶10

Petitioners responded to the said advertisement and appeared in the preliminary test. The result of preliminary test was declared on 25.10.2016 and petitioners were declared successful only for the posts of Assistant Review Officer in Uttarakhand Secretariat and Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

¶11

Since, petitioners were not declared successful for the post of Review Officer in Uttarakhand Secretariat as well as in Uttarakhand Public Service Commission; they have approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:

¶12

“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record and quashing the result dated 25^th October 2016 of the Preliminary/ Screening Examination declared by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for the post of Review Officer/ Assistant Review Officer, Uttarakhand Secretariat/ Uttarakhnd Public Service Commission Examination-2016 as the respondent Commission has prepared 04 separate merit lists even though the qualification for all 04 posts in one and the same.

¶13

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the averment in the Online Application Form for the Main Examination of the petitioners for the post of Review Officer/ Assistant Review Officer, Uttarakhand Secretariat/ Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Examination-2016, wherein the petitioners have been held not qualified/ not applied for the post of review Officer, Secretariat and UKPSC, even though the petitioners have qualified the Preliminary Examination for all the posts.

¶14

(iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to revise and prepare a single select list for the Preliminary/ Screening examination for the post of Review Officer/ Assistant Review Officer, Uttarakhand Secretariat/ Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Examination-2016 and to hold the petitioners eligible for all 04 categories of posts advertised, for the Main Examination.”

¶15

The contention made on behalf of the petitioners was that since there was a common selection for the four posts, in which qualification

¶16

needed was the same, therefore, a common merit list of preliminary test should have been prepared. This Court by an interim order directed the Selecting Body to permit the petitioners to participate in the selection for all the posts.

¶17

A counter affidavit has been filed by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, in which reliance has been placed upon Rule 8(e) of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Preparation of Result of Examination Procedure Rules, 2012, as amended in 2014. The Amendment Rules have been brought on record as Annexure No. CA-2 to the counter affidavit.

¶18

Rule 8(e) of the said Rules provides that where combined selection is made for the posts in two or more departments and qualification prescribed for the posts is also different, then separate merit list shall be prepared for preliminary test as well as main examination. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit, the total number of applications received in response to the aforesaid advertisement has been indicated as 61,962 and the number of candidates, who have opted for different posts is also given in tabular form.

¶19

In paragraph no. 15 of the counter affidavit, the marks scored by the petitioners in preliminary test have been given and the marks scored by the last candidate who were declared successful in preliminary test for each of the four different posts have been indicated. From perusal of paragraph no. 15, it is apparent that petitioners could make it only for two posts i.e. Assistant Review Officer in Uttarakhand Secretariat and Assistant Review Officer in Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, as for the post of Review Officer in the two organizations, the score of marks of the petitioners is less than the marks scored by last successful candidate.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since qualification of computer typing was needed for three posts; while, it was not needed for the post of Review Officer in Public Service

¶21

Commission, therefore, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission could have prepared two separate merit lists, one for the posts for which computer typing test is needed and other post for which computer typing test was not needed. Thus, he submits that if only two merit lists were prepared for preliminary test in place of four lists, then petitioners could have certainly made it amongst the successful candidates for the post of Review Officer also.

¶22

Although, petitioners’ chance may have been diminished on account of preparation of four separate merit lists by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, however, the action of the Commission cannot be said to be contrary to the Rules. Since Rule 8(e) of the aforesaid Rules requires the Commission to prepare separate merit lists, in case combined selection is made for two or more posts having different qualification, therefore, this Court does not find any illegality in the action of the Commission.

¶23

Thus, there is no scope of interference in matter. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners result has not been declared so far; while, other selected candidates have been appointed. If that is so, Uttarakhnd Public Service Commission is directed to declare the result of the petitioners and to recommend their names for appointment as Assistant Review Officer if found suitable as per their ranking in the merit list.

¶25

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶26

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 10.05.2019

¶27

Navin

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Tiwari v. State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Asha Devi Vs Public Service Tribunal and Another

Naresh Kumar Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Vipin Chandra Arya Vs State of Uttarakhand

Anil Singh Bharara and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Balveer Singh and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Dhiraj Lal Vs Union of India and Ors.