High Court · 2025

Presence: - Mr. Rahul Adhikar i, learned counsel for t he pet it ioners Mr. D.S. Bora, learned St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t arakhand / respondent no. 1. Mr. I shwari Dut t Paliwal, learned Addit ional Chief St anding Counsel for t he St at e of Ut t ar Pradesh / respondent no. 3. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J. H o n ’ b l e Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J. ( Pe r : H o n ’ b l e M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) JUD GM EN T Pet it ioners part icipat ed in a select ion held by U.P. Public Service Com m ission, before St at e Reorganisat ion. The said select ion was for vacancies in t he hill sub- cadre. The result of t he select ion was also declared before St at e Reorganisat ion, in which, pet it ioners were declared successful t he post of Principal, Governm ent I nt erm ediat e Colleges. 1

2. By m eans of t his writ pet it ion, pet it ioners have sought t he following reliefs: - “ 1- a writ , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of cert iorari t o call for t he record of t he case and quash t he order dat ed 11.10.2018 Cont ained in Annexure No. 14 t o t he Writ pet it ion. 2- a writ , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ure of m andam us direct ing t he r espondent t o r econsider t he case of t he pet it ioner in t he light of t he let t er of t he cent ral governm ent dat ed 10.3.2014, 27.2.2015 & 13.1.2016 and t he order dat ed 29.8.2018 passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in civil appeal no. 8336- 8337 of 2011 Krishan Kum ar Madan and ot her s V/ s Ashok Kum ar and Ot hers.”

3. Annexure No.- 14 t o t he writ pet it ion is an order dat ed 11.10.2018 passed by Secret ary, Secondary Educat ion, Governm ent of Ut t arakhand, whereby represent at ion m ade by t he pet it ioners for seeking j oining in St at e of Ut t arakhand was rej ect ed.

4. Perusal of t he rej ect ion order dat ed 11.10.2018 reveals t hat t he Secret ary t o t he Governm ent has referred t o t he law declared by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he case of St at e of Ut t aranchal and ot hers v. Sidhart h Srivast ava and ot hers, report ed in ( 2003) 9 SCC 336.

5. We are not inclined t o int erfere in t he m at t er. Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he aforesaid j udgm ent has held t hat recom m endat ions m ade by U.P. Public Service Com m ission for appoint m ent against vacancies in hill- sub cadre is not binding upon Governm ent of Ut t arakhand. Paragraph no. 29 of t he said j udgm ent is reproduced below: - 2 candidat es r ecom m ended wit hout a “ 29. Ther e is no difficult y in accept ing t he pr inciples laid down in t he cases of Shankarsan Dash [ ( 1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC ( L&S) 800 : ( 1991) 17 ATC 95] and Asha Kaul [ ( 1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC ( L&S) 637 : ( 1993) 24 ATC 576] . But t he High Court failed t o apply t hose principles cor rect ly t o t he fact s of t he present cases. As st at ed by t he High Court , it is set t led law t hat a candidat e whose nam e is included in t he select list does not get indefeasible right for appoint m ent on t he basis of t he recom m endat ions m ade by t he Public Service Com m ission, but at t he sam e t im e t he Gov ernm ent has no absolut e right t o rej ect t he r ecom m endat ions and refuse appoint m ent t o t he valid and reasonable gr ound for not accept ing t he recom m enda- t ions of U.P. PSC. The High Court found t hat t he reasons given in t he gov ernm ent order dat ed 29- 8- 2001 were not valid reasons for not accept ing t he recom m endat ions of U.P. PSC. While discussing whet her t he r ecom m endat ions of U.P. PSC are binding on t he St at e Gov ernm ent of Ut t aranchal, keeping part icular, Sect ion 78( 4) of t he Act , we have alr eady expr essed above t hat t he r ecom m endat ions of U.P. PSC ar e not binding t o com pel t he St at e of Ut t aranchal t o giv e appoint m ent s t o t he candidat es r ecom m ended by U.P. PSC. I t is not possible t o accept t he view of t he High Court t hat t he r easons giv en in governm ent order dat ed 29- 8- 2001 are not valid. On t he ot her hand, we find t hat t he reasons given in t he said order are valid and reasonable. At any rat e it cannot be said t hat t he St at e of Ut t aranchal arbit rarily or whim sically r efused t o give appoint m ent s t o t he select ed candidat es” . t he const it ut ional provisions and in view

6. I n view of t he law declared by Hon’ble Suprem e Court in t he aforesaid j udgm ent , t he reliefs as claim ed by pet it ioners cannot be grant ed.

7. The writ pet it ion is, accordingly, disposed of wit h libert y t o pet it ioner t o approach t he Com pet ent Aut horit y in St at e of Ut t ar Pradesh. ( Su b h a sh Up a d h y a y , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 04.06.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046 f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A10381 9DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21C E5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA 3