Writ petition challenging the selection list for Driver posts. Bench held that respondents officially stated no reserved SC vacancies remained; thus, no direction for appointment was issued and petition dismissed.
Application for appointment against reserved SC vacancy dismissed due to non-availability of such vacancies.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPSS No. 141 of 2020 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. |
|||
| Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rakesh Kunwar, Additional C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Uttarakhand Technical Education Board Roorkee invited applications for appointment as Drivers in different Departments of the State Government by issuing an advertisement on 20.12.2011. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 17-1-2019 passed by the Secretary Uttarakhand Technical Education Board (contained in Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition) only relating to the petitioner (Roll No. 401301047). II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the selection list for the post of Driver against the vacant post of S.C. category candidate in pursuance of the advertisement dated 20-12- 2011 for the Post Code G30 (Vehicle Driver) in selection process initiated for Group C post called Group C Combined Civil Service Examination 2011 and give appointment.” The impugned order dated 17.01.2019is on record asAnnexureNo. |
| 7 to the writ petition. It is mentioned in |
|---|
| the said order that certain candidates |
| could not be placed in the select list on |
| account of less number of vacancies in |
| the respective category and petitioner’s |
| roll number is also mentioned in the said |
| order. Learned counsel for the petitioner |
| contends that originally 312 vacancies |
| were advertised for different categories, |
| however, the number of vacancies was |
| reduced to 87. He further submits that |
| by the impugned order dated |
| 17.01.2019, only 8 persons were |
| selected against 10 unfilled vacancies. |
| He further submits that 2 reserved |
| vacancies for S.C. category are yet to be |
| filled, therefore, petitioner has a vested |
| right of appointment against one of |
| those 2 vacancies. Learned counsel for |
| the petitioner further contends that |
| petitioner scored 67.75 marks out of 100 |
| in the selection process, which is equal |
| to the marks scored by last selected |
| candidate in S.C. category, therefore, |
| petitioner has a vested right of |
| appointment against one of the two |
| unfilled vacancies. |
| Learned counsel for respondent no. |
| 2 has drawn attention of this Court to |
| paragraph no. 11 of the counter affidavit |
| filed on behalf of respondent no. 2, |
| where it is stated that after appointment |
| of Vikram Singh and Rajesh Singh |
| against vacancies reserved for S.C. |
| category, there is no further vacancy |
| available to S.C. category candidate. |
| Similar statement has been made in |
| paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit |
| filed on behalf of respondent no. 1. |
| In view of unequivocal stand taken |
| bythe respondents that no further |
| reserved vacancy is available to S.C. category candidate, the relief, as claimed by the petitioner, cannot be granted. It |
|---|
| is not his case that any person, having |
| lower score of marks has been |
| appointed. It is also not his case that a person, who is not eligible for |
| appointment as Driver has been |
| appointed. Admittedly, the S.C. category candidates, who have been appointed so far, have scored more marks in the selection process. In the absence of any reserved vacancy available, no direction can be issued to appoint the petitioner as Driver. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. |
| ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 02.11.2022 Arpan |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner has a vested right to appointment against reserved SC vacancies given the respondents stand that no such vacancies remain.
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Uttarakhand Technical Education Board
Manoj Kumar Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
