2025:UHC:5593-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA SPECIAL APPEAL No. 139 of 2025 20th JUNE, 2025 Uttarakhand Public Service Commission …… Appellant Versus State of Uttarakhand And Others …… Respondents Presence:- Mr. Pankaj Miglani learned counsel for the appellant. Mr. B.S. Parihar, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, learned counsel for the private respondent. --------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri G. Narendar) This appeal has been filed impugning several orders. On being queried regarding maintainability of a single appeal in respect of several orders, learned counsel for the appellant submits that he restricts the appeal to the order dated 22.05.2025. The concluding portion of the order dated 22.05.2025 reads as under:- “On perusal of Para No.3 it reveals that the Secretary to the Government has not examined the entire record and despite court’s order dated 01.05.2025 again the matter has been referred to the Commission. It appears that the Commission as well as the Department concerned are repeatedly misleading to the Court by shifting the burden. This appears to be a wilful disobedience of the 1 2025:UHC:5593-DB orders passed by this Court in this petition, therefore, in such an eventuality, since an application has been moved under Section 215 of the Constitution of India for initiating a contempt proceeding, this Court is now issuing the notices to the Secretary to the Government as well as to the Secretary of the Commission to show cause as to why the contempt proceeding be not drawn against them. 7. Put up this matter on 23.06.2025 on top of board. 8. Office memorandum of the Secretary dated 20.05.2025 is placed on record.” 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no order directing the Commission to issue any proceedings and in the absence of any directions, the Commission could not be found wanting, nor can it be accused of not complying with any direction or much less disobedience of any direction. That all these facts, are placed before the Contempt Court. 3. If that be the case, the present attempt in our opinion, appears to be more in the nature of pre- empted strike. Matter being seized of by the concerned court, it would be inappropriate for this Bench to express its views on the correctness of the orders or otherwise which would depend upon emerging facts. The appellant having already placed their statement before the Single Judge, we find no warrant to pre- empt the consideration of the same by the learned 2 2025:UHC:5593-DB Single Judge. 4. The appeal appears to be premised more on apprehension that the learned Single Judge may pass adverse orders on the application preferred under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. 5. Apprehension, in our considered opinion, is not premised on any reasonable grounds and hence, we are of the opinion that the matter requires to be heard and considered by the Court seized of the matter. 6. Accordingly, appeal stands disposed of with liberty to the appellant to move the learned Single Judge for consideration of the defence placed before the Court. (G. NARENDAR, C.J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 20.06.2025 Ujjwal 3