Sarita Gupta v. State of Uttarakhand and Others

pet it ioner were confirm ed vide order dat ed 07.06.2011; t hat , t hereaft er, pet it ioner discharged her duty t o t he sat isfact ion of t he higher aut horit ies and neit her any com plaint nor any charge sheet was issued t o t he pet it ioner; t hat , pet it ioner was subsequent ly, prom ot ed t o 2 t he post of Execut ive Engineer vide order dat ed

21.07.2018; t hat , aft er 14 years of cont inues sat isfact ory service in t he depart m ent , pet it ioner was issued show- cause not ice dat ed 05.03.2021 t o t he effect t hat since she was select ed under t he General Cat egory ( Wom en) , whereas such horizont al reservat ion for wom en was only t o be grant ed t o t hose candidat es, who were dom icile of St at e of Ut t arakhand only, as such reservat ion was wrongly given t o her. Pet it ioner filed her reply t o t he above show- cause not ice, st at ing t hat , t here was no condit ion in t he advert isem ent t hat horizont al reservat ion t o wom en would be grant ed t o only t hose candidat es, who are dom icile of St at e of Ut t arakhand, while seeking appoint m ent t he post , m isrepresent ed or played any fraud on t he respondent s. Thereaft er, an inquiry was conduct ed by t he Depart m ent , wherein, it has com e t hat t here was no condit ion in t he advert isem ent regarding grant of horizont al reservat ion t o wom en having dom icile cert ificat e of Ut t aranchal ( Ut t arakhand) , furt her pet it ioner neit her m isrepresent ed nor played any fraud while seeking appoint m ent . Beside t his, t he I nquiry Com m it t ee has subm it t ed t hat pet it ioner has rendered 17 years of service in t he Depart m ent . The I nquiry Officer, who was t he Managing Direct or of t he Corporat ion, opined t hat no 3 punishm ent can be given t o t he pet it ioner. The said inquiry report was forwarded t o t he St at e Governm ent ; t hat , t he St at e Governm ent vide it s let t er dat ed

17.05.2023 direct ed t he respondent no.3- Managing Direct or t o t ake furt her act ion against t he pet it ioner on t he ground t hat she was wrongly grant ed benefit of reservat ion as she was not dom icile of Ut t aranchal ( Ut t arakhand) ; t hat , in pursuance of t he above let t er, again show- cause not ice was issued t o t he pet it ioner on

08.06.2023, wherein pet it ioner was asked t o show- cause as t o why her appoint m ent be not cancelled, as she was not ent it led reservat ion of General Cat egory ( Wom en) ; t hat , t hereaft er, pet it ioner replied t o t he said show- cause not ice on 30.06.2023. I n her reply, t he pet it ioner reit erat ed her earlier st and. Beside t his, she has subm it t ed t hat sufficient num ber of post s reserved for General Cat egory ( Wom en) rem ained unfilled, as candidat es belonging t o t he cat egory were not available or failed t o secure t he m inim um cut- off m arks, t hus, she has subm it t ed t hat t he condit ion of having perm anent resident cert ificat e of St at e of Ut t arakhand was waived by t he respondent s by offering appoint m ent t o t he pet it ioner against t he post reserved t o general wom en; t hat , wit hout t aking int o considerat ion t he grounds m ent ioned by t he pet it ioner in her reply t o t he show- cause not ice, 4 t he im pugned dism issal order has been passed, whereby t he services of t he pet it ioner have been dism issed on t he post of Execut ive Engineer vide order dat ed 24.06.2024.

3. We have heard Mr. B.P. Naut iyal, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. S.S Chauhan, learned counsel respondent nos.2 and 3.

4. On perusal of t he im pugned order, prim a facie, it is apparent t hat t he com plainant appears t o have been set- up by co- workers.

5. Learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 would subm it t hat post s in t he reserved cat egories were reserved for candidat es only from Ut t aranchal ( now Ut t arakhand) and t he pet it ioner from out side Ut t aranchal.

6. The fact rem ains t hat it is not t he case of t he respondent s t hat sufficient num ber of candidat es of Ut t aranchal ( Ut t arakhand) from t he General Cat egory ( Wom en) was available way back in 2007 and, despit e t he availabilit y of candidat es hailing from General Cat egory ( Wom en) from Ut t aranchal, appoint m ent s have been m ade. The order of appoint m ent clearly not es t heir hom e dist rict s in Colum n- 5 and appoint m ent s have been m ade despit e t he respondent s being well- aware of t he 5 fact t hat t he pet it ioner cam e from a place out side t he Ut t aranchal. At t his st age, it can only be, prim a facie, inferred t hat t he St at e, which was duly creat ed in 2000 and was facing a short age of personnel, t hat t oo, t echnical personnel, has knowingly act ed and issued appoint m ent orders, which, in our prim a facie opinion, would am ount t o waiver of t he condit ion. I t is not t he case of t he respondent- St at e t hat t he pet it ioner has placed fabricat ed docum ent s regarding her dom icile. The aut hent icit y of t he dom icile cert ificat e not being quest ion and t he dom icile cert ificat e produced by t he pet it ioner having been issued by t he St at e of U.P., t he act ion at t his point of t im e appears t o be a colourable exercise. Reliance on t he condit ion t hat t he candidat es should hail from t he St at e of Ut t aranchal having been consciously ignored, t he quest ion t hat st ands before t his Court is whet her t he St at e can now t urn around and t ry t o t ake t he advant age of it s own wrong. Assum ing t hat t he appoint m ent was m ade cont rary t o t he condit ions im posed by it self, t hough adm it t ed t hat t here was no such condit ion in t he advert isem ent , t he undisput ed fact t hat , aft er t he appoint m ent , t he aut horit ies have occasion t o scrut inize t he reservat ion grant ed t o t he pet it ioner as a general ( wom en) candidat e, while giving her appoint m ent even at t he t im e of j oining her service, 6 at t he t im e of m aking her perm anent em ployee, and also at t he t im e of issuing prom ot ion order, prom ot ing t he pet it ioner on t he post of Execut ive Engineer in t he year 2018, t he respondent s did not t ake any act ion against t he pet it ioner and aft er serving for nearly t wo decades, t he im pugned order has been passed. The present com plaint perhaps is t he result of a rat race am ongst t he peers. The St at e having consciously act ed and having m ade t he condit ion, t he quest ion is whet her t he St at e is est opped from t aking advant age of it s own wrong. Hence, t he order im pugned is liable t o be set aside.

7. As per t he subm issions of learned counsel for respondent no.3 and 4, t he pet it ioner could not have been grant ed t he benefit of reservat ion as such her init ial appoint m ent is bad in t he eyes of law.

8. Considering t he fact s and circum st ances of t he case, we are of t he considered opinion t hat while seeking appoint m ent , t he pet it ioner has neit her m isrepresent ed before t he respondent s aut horit ies placed fabricat ed/ false dom icile cert ificat e before t he concerned aut horit ies and by it s act ion t he respondent s have waived t he condit ions given in t he advert isem ent relat ing t o grant of benefit of reservat ion t o only t hose candidat es, who are dom icile of St at e of Ut t aranchal, t herefore, in t he 7 fact s and circum st ances of t he case and also for t he fact t hat t he pet it ioner has rendered about t wo decades of sat isfact ory service in t he depart m ent and undoubt edly t erm inat ion would not only im pinge upon t he econom ic securit y of t he pet it ioner and her dependent s, but also adversely affect her career; t hat , t his would be highly unj ust and grossly unfair t o t he pet it ioner, who is innocent appoint ee, of an error m ade by t he select ion com m it t ee t wo decades ago. Thus, t he im pugned order of dism issal dat ed 24.06.2024 cannot be sust ained in t he eyes of law and is hereby set aside. The writ pet it ion st ands allowed.

9. The respondent aut horit ies are direct ed t o reinst at e t he pet it ioner in service on t he post of Execut ive Engineer, from which she has been dism issed, wit h all consequent ial benefit s. There shall no order as t o cost s. ( G. N A REN D A R, C. J.) ( A LOK M A H RA , J.) Dat ed: 14.08.2025 BS BALWANT SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=fbbd191c8bdb8b16e8ca7937deaf72a17c02fe2eacbf28cdf4b a7ce8640c5820, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=04E141DF4614F9A4D5F48346EB553DE5185F418755D C00A7A13C14A680C3FA90, cn=BALWANT SINGH 8