2025:UHC:10286-DB I N THE HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL THE HON’BLE THE CHI EF JUSTI CE SRI G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE SUBHASH UPADHYAY SPECI AL APPEAL NO. 3 4 0 OF 2 0 2 5 1 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2 0 2 5 Anmol and others …… Appellants Versus State of Uttarakhand & another …… Respondents Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel Counsel for the respondents : Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel along with Mr. S.S. Chaudhary & Mr. Gajendra Tripathi, learned Standing Counsels and Ms. Rajni Supyal Latwal, learned Brief Holder for the State : Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for UKPSC through video conferencing : Mr. Vinay Kumar, Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, learned counsels for interveners Th e Cou r t m ade t h e follow in g: JUDGMENT: ( per Hon ’ble Th e Ch ief Ju st ice Sr i G. Nar en d ar ) 1) We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Arvind Vashistha assisted by Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Services Commission Mr. Pankaj 1 2025:UHC:10286-DB Miglani, and the learned counsels for the interveners Mr. Shobhit Saharia, Mr. Vinay Kumar & Mr. Shubhang Dobhal. 2) The short question that arises for consideration in the instant appeal is whether the question of equivalence of degrees can be gone into by the Court, or by a mechanism devised by the Court, or court appointed committees. 3) The issue is no more res integra. The Hon’ble Apex Court, on multiple occasions, has held and reiterated that the issue of equivalence of degrees is in the exclusive domain of the State. That apart, this Court while disposing of similar issues has directed the resolution of the issue of equivalence of the degrees by the permanent committee constituted by the State. In that view, the direction in Para 9 of the impugned judgment, in our considered opinion, is unsustainable. The law in this regard having been settled, and a co-ordinate bench of this Court having further held that even the selection authority does not have the competence to decide the issue of equivalence of degrees, the order under challenge requires modification insofar as it relates to a direction to the Secretary, Urban Development Department to 2 2025:UHC:10286-DB constitute a committee to decide the vexed issue of equivalence. Accordingly, the said direction is set aside. 4) A direction is issued to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to refer the issue to the permanent committee constituted by the State. 5) The second respondent shall forward the papers to the permanent committee within ten days from the date of receipt of this order, and the records shall be scrutinized by the permanent committee and a ruling be given on the issue of equivalence within four weeks thereafter. 6) The appeal is disposed of on the above terms. _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ G. NARENDAR, C.J. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J. Dt: 19TH NOVEMBER, 2025 Negi 3 HIMANS HU NEGI Digitally signed by HIMANSHU NEGI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=bb3b60774012c1ef1dae20d13aaf11 6e73351fdaf6878326386908a7f90d5757, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=75BD9D0FB7F4A80990FC51A7 22A6BC552D470EB4FD2F88DDF7C18DB2A15 24A4D, cn=HIMANSHU NEGI Date: 2025.11.20 11:06:15 +05'30'