2025:UHC:2030-DB HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI ASHISH NAITHANI Writ Petition (S/B) No. 56 of 2017 Naveen Chandra Joshi -Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. I.P. Gairola, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Nailwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos. 1 & 3. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission/respondent No. 2. Mr. S.K. Mandal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Court made the following: JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari) 1. Petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology) pursuant to an advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 04.12.2011. Since petitioner’s name did not figure in the list of successful candidates prepared by the Commission and respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were selected for appointment as Assistant Professor (Zoology), therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following reliefs:- “i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the select list so far relates to the respondent no.4 and 5 and quash the order dated 4.1.2017 passed by respondent no.2 (Contained as Annexure No.11 to this writ petition.. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to prepare a fresh select list of candidates for the post of Assistant Professor Zoology so far relates to the petitioner and respondent no 4 and 5. iii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to call the appointment letters of respondent no.4 and 5. 1 2025:UHC:2030-DB iv) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declares the appointment of the respondent no.4 and 5 null and void. v) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner as a selected candidate for the post of Assistant Professor Zoology and issue appointment letter to the petitioner for the post of Assistant Professor Zoology.” 2. According to petitioner, he possessed Post Graduate Degree in Zoology with Ph.D Degree from a recognized University and he was also having NCC “B” & “C” certificates, therefore, he had a preferential right of appointment, compared to respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 3. Mr. Anand Swaroop, Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has filed counter affidavit in which it is stated that out of total 22 vacancies on the post of Assistant Professor (Zoology), 7 were unreserved; 3 candidates, namely, respondent Nos. 4, 5 and the petitioner scored equal marks, since all of them possessed preferential qualifications mentioned in Rule 9 of the applicable service rules, therefore, the candidate who was older in age was selected and recommended for appointment. Para 7, 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit, filed by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission are extracted below:- “7. That in reply to contents of para no 11 to 19 of the Writ Petition it is stated that in the interview 3 candidates namely Shankar Mandal, Nitin Bhardwaj respondent no. 4 and 5 respectively and Naveen Chandra Joshi, Petitioner scored equal 69 marks and all of them possessed preferential qualification as mentioned in relevant service rules at rule no.9 as such all of them standing at equal footing in such a situation who will be attained higher in merit list it has been provided at rule no. 6.6 of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Examination Result Preparation Procedures Rules 2012 which provides that when two and more candidates scored equal marks then the candidates who possessed the preferential qualification will be kept higher in merit list, however, when 2 or more candidates possessed equal marks and also possessed the 2 2025:UHC:2030-DB equal preferential qualification also prescribed rules 6.6. of Result Preparation Procedure Rules 2012 will be applied. 8. That in continuation in preceding para it is submitted that in such a situation where the recruitment is to be done by way of interview only the procedure prescribed in rules 6.6 (C) (I and II) will applied which provides that if two or more candidates secure equal marks in interview and possessed preferential qualification then the candidates older in age will be kept higher in merit list and in case two or more candidates also have the same age then the merit list will be arranged in accordance to English alphabetical order. True copy of Examination Result Preparation Procedure Rules 2012 is being filed herewith and marked Annexure C.A No.1 to this affidavit. 9. That it is stated that the respondent no. 4 and 5 being older in age then the petitioner as such in view of rules 6.6 of Examination Result Preparation Procedure Rules 2012, their name has been kept higher in merit list and declared successful. Since only 7 post were available for General Candidates and out of which two post were Horizontally reserved for Uttarakhand Female candidates as such despite scoring equal marks to the last selected candidates petitioner could not be declared in the final result list.” 4. Since the course of action adopted by Selecting Body, i.e. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is as per Result Preparation Procedure Rules, framed by the Commission in 2012, therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 5. The writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. __________________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 7th May, 2025 Mahinder 3 MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.05.09 10:10:13 +05'30'