Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2026 DAILYLAW 6162 (UTT)

PAWAN PRASHAD THAPLIYAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPSS/616/2019 · 2026-05-29

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

2026:UHC:4239 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/616/2019 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. B.S. Negi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Nathi Singh Pundir, Advocate for Selecting Body. 2. According to the petitioner, he participated in a selection for appointment to the post of Cooperative Inspector Group-2, held by Uttarakhand Board of Technical Education; in that selection, five vacancies on the said post were reserved for Rajya Andolankari and Sports persons; however, no one was selected and recommended against those five posts; petitioner who belongs to general category scored 71.5% marks and the marks scored by last selected candidate were 72.75 and petitioner stands immediately below the last selected candidate in the merit list, therefore he has right to be appointed against five unfilled vacancies. 3. Learned State Counsel, however, submits that selection process was initiated in the year 2011 and concluded in 2014. He further submits that thereafter, several selections were held by other selection agencies, therefore relief as claimed cannot be granted to petitioner at this 2026:UHC:4239 belated stage. 4. Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel appearing for selecting body submits that Board of Technical Education was entrusted with selection for appointment to Group ‘C’ posts under the State, before 2014 and vide order dated 22.07.2015, the power to hold selection was withdrawn from said body and handed over to Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that merely because the selecting body has changed will not denude petitioner of his right to get appointed based on his ranking in the merit list. 6. He submits that petitioner be permitted to make representation to the competent authority, who shall take decision thereupon. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation. If he makes representation within two weeks from today, decision thereupon shall be taken by competent authority, as per law, within ten weeks thereafter. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 29.05.2026 Mahinder/