Arjun Chand v. State of Uttarakhand and others

26.08.2013, passed by this Court in the PIL. (ii) The result of the written examination was published. He would submit that though select 4 list was prepared, but it was without Uttarakhand Andolankaris and in the select list, the name of the petitioner does not find any place. (iii) Insofar as the case of Dharmendra Singh is concerned, he was offered appointment on

11.07.2013. He could not assume charge of his office due to interim order dated 26.08.2013, passed in the PIL. Therefore,his case was separately considered. The case of Dharmendra Singh is quite different than the case of the petitioner because the petitioner was never selected. He was never offered any appointment. (iv) It is also argued that the select list prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.08.2014, cannot go beyond one year, pursuant to the Government Order, and the vacant posts then available were carried forward in the year 2020-

8. It is undisputed that pursuant to the advertisement dated 22.08.2014, the petitioner applied for the post of Sub Inspector and he was declared successful in the written examination. The selection process consist of physical examination; written examination, and thereafter, a merit list is to be prepared based on marks obtained and after applying the reservation rules. In the instant case, merit list, i.e. the select list, has never been prepared. This is admitted to the petitioner, which he has stated in 5 Para 15 of the writ petition. It is also admitted that in the select list of the candidates, the name of the petitioner was not included due to the interim order dated 26.08.2013 passed in the PIL. This order reads as follows:- “2. We, accordingly, while admit the writ petition and direct the matter to be listed for hearing in its turn; restrain the State from giving any further appointment on the basis of the policy / rules being the subject matter of the preset writ petition.”

9. The candidates under the Uttarakhand Andolankari quota, according to learned State Counsel, were excluded from the select list, due to interim order dated 26.08.2013, passed in the PIL.

10. Now, the above discussion makes it clear that the petitioner was neither selected nor appointed pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.08.2014. The question that determination is as to whether the application of the 2023 Act entitles the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector Civil Police, pursuant to advertisement dated 29.08.2014, merely because he had qualified the written examination?

11. Section 1(2) and Section 5 of the 2023 Act are as follows:- “Section 1. Short title and commencement, extent and applicability (2)- For the purpose of section 5, this Act shall be deemed to have come into force from 11th August, 2004 and for the purposes of the remaining provisions with immediate effect.” “Section 5 Savings - The selections/appointments of the State andolankari made to different Government services/posts as per the government order issued on 11th 6 of August 2004 or thereafter, shall be deemed to be valid selections/appointments under this Act.”

12. A bare reading of it makes it clear that these two provisions are basically to save such selections and appointments, which had already been made. The petitioner has never been appointed, never been selected. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim appointment based on application of the provisions of the 2023 Act.

13. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

14. The writ petition is dismissed. Ravi Bisht (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

15.05.2025