HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 49 of 2025 Kamal Singh Kulyal and another ….....Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal D.A.G. for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the respondent no.4. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to a communication dated 27.12.2024 issued by the respondent no.1/the State of Uttarakhand (“the State”), by which, the permission has been denied for making appointment on unfilled vacancies of advertised post of Forester on the ground that life of the waiting list has expired. The petitioners also seek direction that the State may be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment against unfilled vacancies on the post of Forester based on advertisement dated 18.12.2019 issued by the respondent no.4/Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (“the Commission”) as the names of the petitioners have been recommended by the Commission on 21.07.2024 in the waiting list. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Briefly stated the case of the petitioners is that pursuant to an advertisement issued on 18.12.2019 by the Commission, the petitioners applied for the post. After undergoing the entire process, 2 the Commission made recommendation in favour of the 292 selected candidates for their appointment on 21.09.2023. Thereafter, the chronology has been stated:- (i) On 14.11.2023, the Commission also recommended 16 candidates for appointment to the post of Forester. (ii) On 22.02.2024, Commission recommended four candidates for appointment to the post of Forester. (iii) The respondent nos. 2 and 3, Forest Department made a communication to the Commission informing that 9 candidates, who were recommended for appointment have not joined. Therefore, the Commission made further recommendation for appointment of 6 candidates for appointment on 21.07.2024. The petitioners names were included in that recommendation. But, when approached by its communication dated 27.12.2024, the State has declined approval for making appointment on the unfilled vacancies from the waiting list on the ground that the life of waiting list has expired after one year from the date of recommendation. It is impugned herein. 3 4. The State has filed its counter affidavit. According to it, the first recommendation was made by the Commission on 21.09.2023 and after one year of it, the waiting list gets expired. Therefore, the State had declined to give appointment to the petitioners by the impugned order. 5. In fact, the petitioners have also raised an objection that the life of waiting list for one year has been fixed by Waiting List Rules, 2023 (“2023 Rules”), which may not be applicable in the instant case because initial advertisement was issued in the year 2019. 6. According to the State, as per office memorandum dated 03.07.2007, the merit list published by Departmental Selection Committees for direct recruitment posts outside the purview of the Public Service Commission shall not be used after one year from the date of receipt of such select list. This office memorandum has been enclosed by the State alongwith its counter affidavit as Annexure 2. 7. Respondent no.4 has not filed any affidavit. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners’ name had already recommended for appointment by the Commission on 21.07.2024. He would submit that the life of waiting list may be counted from the last recommendation made from the merit list, which in the instant case, according to learned counsel for the petitioners was made on 22.02.2024. He would submit that the time of one year should have been counted from this date. But, even otherwise, he would submit that the first select recommendation of 292 candidates was made by the Commission to the Appointing Authority on 21.09.2023. If the period of one year of the waiting list is counted from that date, it would expire on 20.09.2024. But prior to 4 that, it is argued that on 21.07.2024, the recommendation had already been made from waiting list by the respondent for appointment of six candidates, including the petitioners. Therefore, it is argued that the waiting list has not lost its life. It was still alive. 9. Learned State counsel would submit that after recruitment pursuant to an advertisement dated 18.12.2019 of the Commission, fresh requisition has already been sent by the Administrative Department to the Commission on 09.05.2024. Therefore, on that date, the life of waiting list had already expired. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners would also submit that, in fact, different treatment has been given by the State to the proposal given for the post to the candidates appearing for the examination of Forester and the candidates who appeared to the posts of Forest Guards. He submits that the State had treated the petitioners’ cadre differently than the Forest Guard. In the case of Forest Guard also requisition had already been sent when recommendation from waiting list was received. But the requisition was ignored on the ground that it had been returned by the Commission to the Administrative Department. Therefore, the process was not pending at the level of the Commission. It is argued that in the instant case also, although, the requisition was forwarded on 09.05.2024 to the Commission, but the Commission had returned it to the Administrative Department on 14.08.2024. Therefore, by the same analogy, it cannot be said that any requisition was pending with the Commission. Reference has been made to the Annexure 13 which is impugned communication as well as Annexure 14, by which approval was granted for the appointment of Forest Guards from the waiting list, which was received post forwarding of subsequent 5 requisition by the Administrative Department to the Commission, which was returned by the Commission. 11. The case of petitioners cannot be differentiated. The State has ignored a requisition which had been returned to the Commission to the Administrative Department is the case of appointments of Forest Guards from the waiting list (Annexure 14 to the writ petition). On the same analogy, the petitioners’ case has to be treated. The requisition dated 09.05.2024 had also been returned by the Commission to the Administrative Department on 14.08.2024. When the decision was taken in the case of the petitioners on 27.12.2024, on that date, there was no requisition pending. Therefore, the recommendation dated 21.07.2024 made by the Commission deserves consideration by the State. 12. The factual position is not in dispute. The recommendations were made by the Commission for appointment of candidates to the post of Forester on 21.09.2023, 14.11.2023 and 22.02.2024. Thereafter, recommendation for appointment of six candidates to the post of Forester was made by the Commission from the waiting list on 21.07.2024. This has not been approved by the impugned communication dated 27.12.2024 by the State on that ground that the waiting list had outlived its life because its life is for one year from the date of recommendation. Even if the date of recommendation is counted from 21.09.2023, one year period expires on 20.09.2024. Prior to it, the Commission had already forwarded the recommendation to the Administrative Department for appointment of six candidates for appointment to the position of Foresters. If it is kept pending with the respondents, it cannot be said that waiting list has outlived its life. Waiting list was utilized within the time when it was in existence. Within one year from the date of first 6 recommendation i.e. from 21.09.2023, the recommendations were made from the waiting list. Therefore, it cannot be said that approval cannot be accorded for appointment of such 6 candidates, who were recommended for appointment by the Commission on 21.07.2024 on the ground that the waiting list had outlived its life. In view it, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is bad in the eye of law. 13. The waiting list has been used within its life. Inaction on the part of the respondents may not be permitted to make the waiting list redundant. Therefore, while setting aside the impugned order the writ petition deserves to be allowed and impugned order set aside. 14. The writ petition is allowed. 15. Impugned order is set aside. 16. The respondent/State is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for appointment to the position of Foresters on the basis of the recommendation that has been made by the Commission on 21.07.2024. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 11.06.2025 Jitendra