Disposed¶8

Dhanpal v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC29 Oct 2025WPSS/1730/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPSS/1730/2025 | Neutral 2025:UHC:9517 | High Court of Uttarakhand | Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. | decided 29.10.2025 | select list exclusion | failure to attend document verification | Selecting Body functus officio after recommendation | three unfilled Scheduled Caste reserved vacancies | petitioner scored 128 marks; last recommended SC candidate 106 marks | representation to Appointing Authority | Competent Authority to decide within four weeks | Advocates: Vinay Kumar (petitioner); N.K. Papnoi, Standing Counsel (State of Uttarakhand); Pankaj Miglani (Respondent No. 3 - Commission)

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appointing Authority by making a representation; if the representation is made within one week, the Competent Authority shall take a decision thereupon within four weeks thereafter. ¶8

Dhanpal Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, belonging to the Scheduled Caste category and scoring more marks than the last candidate recommended in that category, has a right to be considered for appointment against one of the three reserved vacancies for which no recommendation was made.

¶5

Court's answer

Having made its recommendations, the Selecting Body has become functus officio, so referring the matter back to it would serve no purpose.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Appointing Authority by way of representation; if such representation is made within one week, the Competent Authority shall decide upon it within four weeks thereafter.

¶8

Key takeaways

The court endorsed the submission that the petitioner himself was at fault for not attending document verification on the given date and time and for not approaching the Court while that process was ongoing, though it treated the point as non-decisive ('Be that as it may').obiter¶7

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Recruitment / select-list grievance — High Court of Uttarakhand (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.), WPSS/1730/2025, decided 29.10.2025 (Neutral Citation 2025:UHC:9517). The petitioner's name was omitted from the select list because he failed to appear for document verification in time; he contended that, being a Scheduled Caste candidate who scored 128 marks (against 106 for the last recommended SC candidate), he was entitled to consideration against one of three SC-reserved vacancies for which no recommendation was made. Holding the Selecting Body functus officio after its recommendations (so referral back was futile) and observing that the petitioner bore responsibility for missing verification, the court disposed of the writ petition with liberty to submit a representation to the Appointing Authority within one week, to be decided by the Competent Authority within four weeks thereafter.

¶1

2025:UHC:9517

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSS/1730/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
			2. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 - Commission. 4. Petitioner’s name was not included in the select list due to the fact that he could not appear for document verification before the Selecting Body in time. The Selecting Body has recommended names of selected candidates to the Appointing Authority.
			5. In this writ petition, petitioner contends that since no recommendation was made in respect of three vacancies reserved for Scheduled Caste category; petitioner belongs to that category and his score of marks is more than the marks scored by last candidate in that category, therefore, he has a right to be considered for appointment against one of the three unfilled vacancies. 6. Since Selecting Body has become _functus officio_after recommendation, therefore, no purpose would be served by referring the matter to Selecting Body.
			7. Learned State Counsel is right in submitting that petitioner himself is to be blamed for not appearing before

¶3

2025:UHC:9517

¶4

Selecting Body for document verification on the given date & time and also not approaching this Court, while the process of document verification was on. 8. Be that as it may, since petitioner has allegedly scored 128 marks in the selection process, and according to him, Scheduled Caste category candidate with 106 marks was recommended for appointment, therefore, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the Appointing Authority by making representation. If petitioner makes representation within one week from today, Competent Authority shall take decision thereupon, within four weeks thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 29.10.2025 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2025.10.29 06:11:08 -07'00'

¶5

2025:UHC:9517

Dhanpal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanpal v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deepvikram Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand

Deepanshu Sharma Vs State of Uttarakhand

Vinod Kumar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Shankar Deep Vs State of Uttarakhand

Barkha Kanyal Vs State of Uttarakhand

Spark Educational and Medical Awareness Welfare Society Vs State of Uttarakhand