2025:UHC:6620-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 16069 of 2017) In SPA/1043/2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) Mr. Puran Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State / appellants. 2. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, Advocate for the respondent. 3. There is 236 days delay in filing the special appeal. For the reasons indicated in the delay condonation application, we are inclined to condone the delay of 236 days in filing the appeal. Accordingly, delay condonation application is allowed. 4. State has filed this intra-court appeal, challenging the judgment dated 16.03.2017, rendered by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 18 of 2011. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by respondent, challenging order dated 20.12.2010, passed by Chief Engineer, Level-1, Public Works Department, was quashed. The impugned judgment is extracted below:- “The case of the petitioner, in nutshell, is that the petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer in the Scheduled Caste category. In the seniority list his name was reflected in the Scheduled Caste category. However, on the basis 2025:UHC:6620-DB of the same complaint, the seniority list has been redrawn vide order dated 20.12.2010 whereby the petitioner has been shown as General category. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has not been issued any notice before alteration in the seniority list dated 20.12.2010. The petitioner ought to have been issued at least notice before redrawing the seniority list dated 20.12.2010. Accordingly, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.12.2010 annexed as annexure no.12 to the petition is hereby quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.” 5. The order dated 20.12.2010, passed by Chief Engineer, Level-1, impugned in the writ petition, is on record as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. By the said order, representation made by respondent for adding ‘Scheduled Caste’ against his name in the seniority list, was rejected on the ground that respondent is resident of State of Uttar Pradesh and he was selected and appointed against a unreserved vacancy in State of Uttarakhand, even though he belongs to Scheduled Caste community in State of Uttar Pradesh, however, he cannot be given benefit of reservation in State of Uttarakhand, thus, his request for adding ‘Scheduled Caste’ against his name in the seniority list cannot be acceded. 6. Learned State Counsel submits that learned Single Judge failed to understand the controversy and decided the writ petition in favour of respondent by holding that seniority of respondent cannot be disturbed without hearing. 2025:UHC:6620-DB He submits that seniority of respondent was not affected in any manner and his request for mentioning ‘Scheduled Caste’ after his name was turned down. 7. Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent concedes that respondent had not raised any seniority dispute before the Writ Court. 8. Thus, the interference made by learned Single Judge was not justified. 9. In such view of the matter, impugned judgment dated 16.03.2017 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. The Special Appeal is allowed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 29.07.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb904 6f487df006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A1038 19DA875643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB2 1CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.08.02 10:44:53 +05'30'