Sat yendra Singh Kum ain v. Ut t arakhand Subordinat e Service Select ion Com m ission and

Pending applicat ion, if any , st ands disposed of.” 1

2. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat t he appellant was denied appoint m ent , despit e scoring m ore m arks t han t he last select ed candidat e, only on t he ground t hat appellant did not score m inim um 45 percent m arks in bot h papers t he writ t en exam inat ion. He refers t o t he st and t aken by t he Ut t arakhand Subordinat e Service Select ion Com m ission in paragraph 2E of t he count er affidavit , filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 & 2/ Select ing Body, which is ext ract ed below: - “ That t he pet it ioner according t o his ow n case secured 71.25/ 100 in I st Paper and 44.25/ 100 in t he I I nd Paper of in writ t en t he writ t en exam inat ion. His exam inat ion com es t o 115.5. Since t he pet it ioner failed t o secure m inim um 45% m arks in second paper, he could not be select ed.” t ot al m arks

3. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat neit her in t he Advert isem ent , nor in t he Recruit m ent Rules, applicable for t he post in- quest ion i.e. Assist ant Account ant , t here was such requirem ent of scoring m inim um 45 percent m arks in bot h papers of writ t en exam inat ion. The Advert isem ent dat ed 29.10.2015, whereby select ion process was init iat ed, is enclosed as Annexure No. 1 t o t he Writ Pet it ion. There is no st ipulat ion in t he Advert isem ent t hat a candidat e, who fails t o score m inim um 45 percent m arks in each of t he 2 t wo papers, would recom m ended appoint m ent . Sim ilarly, t he Service Rules, which are on record as Annexure No. 1 t o t he rej oinder affidavit , are absolut ely silent on t he quest ion of m inim um cut - off m arks, which are required t o be obt ained in writ t en exam inat ion.

4. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel appearing for t he Select ion Body concedes t hat t he Advert isem ent , as well as t he Recruit m ent Rules, do not cont ain t he requirem ent of scoring m inim um 45 percent m arks in bot h t he papers of writ t en exam inat ion. He, however, refers t o Ut t arakhand ( Out side t he Purview of Ut t arakhand Public Service Com m ission) Procedure for Direct Recruit m ent t o Group- C Post s ( Am endm ent ) Rules, 2011, which were not ified on 13.12.2011.

5. By t he said am endm ent , Sub- Rule 6 was added in Rule 5 of t he original Rules, not ified in 2008. Sub- Rule 6, which was added by t he said am endm ent , lays down t he m inim um cut - off m arks required in t he select ion for candidat es belonging t o S.T./ S.C., OBC and General Cat egory.

6. A careful perusal of t he aforesaid provision reveals t hat t he cut - off m arks fixed for General Cat egory and OBC Cat egory candidat es is 45 percent , while for 3 S.C. & S.T. cat egory candidat es, t he m inim um cut - off m arks would be 35 percent , and anyone scoring less t han t he prescribed cut - off m arks, would not be included in t he select list .

7. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it s t hat t he 2011 Rules, relied upon by t he Select ing Body, also do not provide t hat a candidat e has t o score m inim um 45 percent m arks in all t he papers of writ t en exam inat ion, and Sub- Rule 6 of Rule 5 only provides t hat t he candidat es belonging t o t he General Cat egory or OBC cat egory should have scored m inim um 45 percent m arks in t he aggregat e in t he writ t en exam inat ion for inclusion in t he select list . Thus, he subm it s t hat t he ground t aken for non- suit ing t he appellant appoint m ent is unsust ainable. He furt her subm it s t hat t he OBC cat egory candidat e, who scored lesser m arks t han t he appellant , was select ed and appoint ed as Assist ant Account ant in Dist rict Ut t arkashi, t herefore, appellant is ent it led t o be appoint ed by virt ue of his higher m arks.

8. This Court finds subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned counsel t he appellant . Since appellant ’s nam e was recom m ended appoint m ent , only on t he ground t hat he could not score 4 m inim um 45 percent m arks in bot h t he papers, and in t he absence of any provision in t he Advert isem ent , or in t he applicable Service Rules, t hat every candidat e has t o score m inim um cut - off m arks in bot h t he papers, denial of appoint m ent t o t he appellant is unsust ainable.

9. Learned counsel for t he appellant subm it t ed t hat all vacancies reserved for OBC cat egory, could not be filled- up, upon conclusion of t he select ion process and som e vacancies are st ill available, t herefore, appellant can be easily offered appoint m ent by t he Com pet ent Aut horit y. Thus, he subm it s t hat t he Select ing Body be direct ed t o recom m end t he nam e of appellant for appoint m ent , and t he Appoint ing Aut horit y be also direct ed t o issue appoint m ent order.

10. Mr. B.D. Pande, learned counsel appearing for t he Select ing Body fairly subm it s t hat he has no obj ect ion, if t he Appeal is decided in t erm s of prayer m ade by learned counsel for t he appellant .

11. We, t herefore, allow t he Special Appeal, set aside t he im pugned j udgm ent , rendered in Writ Pet it ion No. 573 of 2016, and direct t he Ut t arakhand Subordinat e Service Select ion Com m ission t o recom m end nam e of appellant for appoint m ent as Assist ant Account ant , if he is ent it led for such 5 appoint m ent , as per his score of m arks am ongst OBC cat egory candidat es. I f t he nam e of t he appellant is recom m ended by t he Select ion Com m it t ee, t hen it shall be incum bent upon t he Appoint ing Aut horit y t o offer appoint m ent t o appellant as Assist ant Account ant wit hin t wo m ont hs from dat e of receipt of recom m endat ion from t he Select ing Body, if vacancy is available in any of t he t hirt een dist rict s wit hin t he St at e.

12. Needful shall be done by t he Select ing Body wit hin six weeks’ from t he dat e of receipt of cert ified copy of t his order. M A N OJ K UM A R TI W A RI , J. A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 22 nd April, 2025 Shiksha SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c 24b5aa08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A5 42D7FF0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF 5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6