2026:UHC:1416 SL. No. Dat e Of f ice Not es, r ep or t s, or d er s or p r oceed in g s or d ir ect ion s an d Reg ist r ar ’s or d er w it h Sig n at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS W PSS 2 1 4 4 / 2 0 2 3 Hon ’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder, for the State. Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, Advocate, for Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Mr. M.C. Kandpal, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Devesh Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent no. 3. (2) Petitioner participated in a selection for the post of Workshop Instructor (Electrical). As per the advertisement, every candidate was required to have industrial experience of minimum three years. According to petitioner, consequent upon written examination, his name figured in the provisional merit list, however, at the time of document verification, it was found that experience certificate possessed by him was not as per the condition of advertisement. Therefore, his name did not figure in the final merit list and one Sri Chandan Singh (respondent no. 3) was recommended for appointment in place of petitioner. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/ setting aside the impugned Provisional Recommendation List of Candidates (contained as Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition) to the extent of exclusion of the name of the petitioner and to the extent of permitting change of preference/ choice to the respondent no. 3 to Technical Education (as against his original preference of Tribal Welfare) after the declaration of the result. ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to issue appointment letter in favour of respondent no. 3 on the basis of Provisional Recommendation List of Candidates (contained as Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition) as against the petitioner’s preference of Technical Education and may further be pleased to direct the respondents to 2026:UHC:1416 forthwith include the name of the petitioner in the Provisional Recommendation of List of Candidates (contained as Annexure no. 6 to this writ petition) as against petitioner’s preference of Technical Education.” (3) This Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter as the experience certificate submitted by the petitioner was issued by an electrical contractor. Since the advertisement clearly indicated that every candidate must have industrial experience, therefore, experience certificate obtained while serving with a contractor does not fall within the category of industrial experience. (4) Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that rules of the game were changed inasmuch as a corrigendum was issued on 11.7.2022, wherein it was provided that industrial experience should be from an industry registered under the applicable rules with the State Government or the Central Government, which is illegal, and therefore petitioner is entitled to be recommended for appointment. (5) This Court is not impressed by the aforesaid submission. Since the condition mentioned in the advertisement itself is clear and petitioner does not meet the said condition, therefore, he is not affected by any clarification, which is provided in the corrigendum. (6) Even otherwise also, respondent no. 3 scored 84.75 per cent marks, while petitioner scored 81.25 per cent marks in the selection in question, therefore selection of respondent no. 3 cannot be faulted. Thus there is no scope for interference in the matter. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 2 7 .2 .2 0 2 6 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957 BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.03.09 10:09:12 +05'30' 2026:UHC:1416