Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeals dismissed as not pressed; Commission to comply with the learned Single Judge's order dated 04.06.2025 within three months in terms of its undertaking; contempt proceedings closed, with liberty to the contempt applicants to seek revival on failure to comply; pending applications disposed of accordingly.

Issue for consideration

Whether the batch of sixteen special appeals filed by the Commission against the Single Judge's common order should be dismissed as not pressed, with the Commission's request that the Single Judge's order not be treated as a precedent (the State having not appealed and being ready to comply). +2 more

Court's answer

The special appeals are dismissed as not pressed, on the instruction of the Secretary of the Commission that the appeals were not being pressed since the State had not appealed and was ready to comply with the learned Single Judge's order.

Ratio / Principle

On the Commission's statement and undertaking that it would comply with the order of the learned Single Judge within three months, the Court directed that compliance be effected and closed the contempt proceedings in view of the undertaking.

Key takeaways

If the Commission fails to comply with the learned Single Judge's directions within three months, the applicants who had filed the contempt applications are at liberty to pray for revival of the contempt proceedings.ratio¶¶99
Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the same terms.ratio¶¶102

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL (DB: Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J. and Subhash Upadhyay, J.), judgment dated 03.06.2026 (2026:UHC:4449-DB) — Sixteen Special Appeals (Nos. 91, 352 and 360-373 of 2025) by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission against the common judgment dated 04.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge disposing writ petitions of Assistant Teacher (L.T. Grade) candidates. The Single Judge had, inter alia, directed re-evaluation of Booklet D Question 64 (Lampetra Planeri) treating options B and C as correct and allotment of marks per the Commission's Guidelines; protected candidates figuring in the provisional recommendation list dated 09.02.2025; directed publication of category-wise cut-offs; ordered appointment of equally placed candidates against vacant posts or, failing accommodation, supernumerary posts; and fixed a three-month timeline. Before the Division Bench, counsel for the Commission, on instructions of its Secretary, stated that the appeals were not being pressed because the State had not appealed and was ready to comply; he denied deliberate or wilful disobedience, gave an undertaking to comply with the writ court's directions, and sought closure of the pending contempt proceedings; the State and private respondents raised no objection. Held: the appeals were dismissed as not pressed; the Commission was to comply with the Single Judge's order within three months; the contempt proceedings stood closed on the strength of the undertaking, with liberty reserved to the contempt applicants to seek revival if compliance failed; pending applications were disposed of accordingly. No statute or precedent was cited, and the merits of the answer-key dispute were not adjudicated by this Court.

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Common order and judgment dated 04.06.2025 of the learned Single Judge disposing a batch of writ petitions by candidates who appeared in the selection for the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade; the Commission was aggrieved mainly by the directions on Booklet D Question 64 (re-evaluation and allotment of marks per the Commission's Guidelines), publication of cut-off marks, appointment of newly qualified candidates against vacant posts or supernumerary posts, and a three-month timeline.¶¶65
High Court of Uttarakhand (learned Single Judge) · 04.06.2025
Prior proceeding
Writ petitions disposed of by the learned Single Judge with directions, including that deleted questions (Booklet A Question 2 and Booklet C Question 39) and Booklet D Question 64 undergo re-evaluation with marks allotted as per the Commission's Guidelines.¶¶78
Prior proceeding
Answer-key dispute on Booklet D Question 64 (Lampetra Planeri): the Commission's key was option B, but CBSE and the University differed and experts opined both B and C were correct; the Single Judge held the question needed re-evaluation with options B & C as correct.¶¶72
Prior proceeding
Direction protecting candidates in the provisional recommendation list published on 09.02.2025 from revision; the re-determination exercise was confined to unsuccessful candidates.¶¶84
Prior proceeding
Direction that candidates securing equal or higher marks than the last candidate of the provisional recommendation list be offered appointments against vacant posts, failing which the State was to create supernumerary posts.¶¶89
Prior proceeding
Statement of the learned Advocate General before the Single Judge that many L.T. Grade vacancies existed, that recommended candidates should not be disturbed, and that selected candidates could be accommodated on supernumerary posts if the Court so directed.¶¶92
Prior proceeding
Contempt applications against the Commission were pending; counsel sought their closure along with withdrawal of the appeals.¶¶96