2025:UHC:10229 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 2 0 0 3 / 2 0 2 3 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel, for the State. Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate, for the selecting body. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, Advocate, for the applicant in impleadment application. (2) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. Mr. Vijay Bhatt, learned Counsel for the applicant in impleadment application, was also heard on the issues raised in the writ petition. (3) Petitioner’s candidature for appointment on the post of Operation Theatre Technician was rejected only on the ground that his registration with Uttarakhand State Medical Faculty was after the last date of submission of application. Petitioner contends that he was earlier registered with Uttar Pradesh State Medical Faculty with effect from the year 2014; he applied for transfer of his registration from Uttar Pradesh to Uttarakhand on 15.1.2022; Uttarakhand State Medical Faculty had sent a letter for verification of petitioner’s qualification to its counterpart in the State of U.P. and U.P. State Medical Faculty responded to the said letter on 16.2.2022 and ultimately petitioner came to be registered with Uttarakhand State Medical Faculty on 1.4.2022. (4) Admittedly, the last date of submission of application for the post of Operation Theatre Technician was 2025:UHC:10229 27.1.2022. Candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he did not possess requisite qualification on the last date of submission of application. Clause 6 of the advertisement dated 6.1.2022 provided that one should be registered with Uttarakhand State Medical Faculty or Uttarakhand Para Medical Council on the last date of submission of application. (5) Learned Counsels for the respondents support the order dated 20.10.2023, whereby candidature of petitioner was rejected. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/ S) 2331 of 2024 and other connected petitions. (6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon a judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/ S) 2331 of 2024 and other connected petitions. Those writ petitions were decided in terms of the law declared by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Saroj v. State of U.P., reported as (2022) 17 SCC 477. He subm its that identical issue was dealt with by this Court in the said judgment and the only difference was that the post there was of Nursing Officer, however the question of law involved their was identical to that involved in this writ petition, therefore this writ petition deserves to be decided in terms of the said judgment. (7) Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the selecting body, concedes that the ratio of the judgment, rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Saroj, applies squarely to the facts of the present case. Thus he submits that he has no objection if the writ petition 2025:UHC:10229 is decided in terms of the judgment dated 6.11.2025, rendered by this Court in Writ Petition (S/ S) 2331 of 2024 and other connected petitions. (8) Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 20.10.2023, passed by the selecting body rejecting petitioner’s candidature, is set aside qua the petitioner. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment as per the applicable selection criteria and also to declare his result. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 8 .1 1 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198 d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FC A58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.11.18 17:42:43 +05'30' 2025:UHC:10229