2026:UHC:4394 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition No. 623 of 2026 (SS) Ankit Kumar -- Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others -- Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates: Mr. Ankit Kumar, petitioner in person Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy Advocate General for the State Ms. Priyanka Agrawal, Advocate for Selecting Body Mr. Prateek Tripathi, Advocate for respondent No. 3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. Petitioner participated in a selection for appointment to the post of ‘Forester’, held by Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UKSSSC). Since petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the selection, therefore he has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: i. Issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the arbitrary appointment of respondent no.3 vide the recommendation list dated 24.12.2025 and Notice/Letter dated 03.02.2025. (ANNEXURE NO.1&2) ii. Issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to assess the vacancies in accordance with the updated roaster in compliance with the GO dated 22.05.2020. iii. Issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioner given to Uttarakhand through Secretary, Uttarahand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (UKSSSC) and Chief Conservator of Forests, Human Resource Development and Personnel Management, Dehradun, Uttarakhand expeditiously. iv. Issue a writ of order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner for the post of Forester after assessment of vacancies in compliance with the GO dated 22.05.2020. 2. The sole contention raised by the petitioner against appointment of respondent No. 3 is that even 1 2026:UHC:4394 though respondent No. 3 had not submitted hill certificate with his online application in response to the advertisement, respondent No. 3 was given benefit of relaxed standard regarding height, which was available to candidates having hill certificate. 3. It is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 did not upload hill certificate with his online application and hill certificate was issued to respondent No. 3 only on 26.11.2025, while the last date for submission of online application for appointment was 28.02.2025. 4. As per the advertisement, every male candidate should be not less than 163 cm in height; however, for candidate belonging to Scheduled Tribes, Gorkha, Nepali, Assami, Ladakhi, Sikkim, Bhutan, Garhwal, Kumaoni, Naga and Arunanchal Pradesh, Lahaul & Spiti, and Meghalaya communities, the standard regarding height was relaxed to 152 cm. However, in the advertisement, it was clearly indicated that benefit of relaxed standard regarding height would be available to candidates who produced hill certificate with their application form. 5. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for Selecting Body, submits that height of respondent No. 3, as per his application form, is 164 cm; however, during measurement after selection, his height was found to be 160 cm, which is much less than what is required. 6. She submits that since respondent No. 3 produced hill certificate at the time of document verification, 2 2026:UHC:4394 therefore respondent No. 3 was given benefit, which is available to hill candidates. 7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 concedes that his client was not having hill certificate at the time of submission of online application in response to the advertisement issued by Selecting Body and hill certificate was issued to respondent No. 3 after commencement of selection process and said certificate was produced before Selecting Body at the time of document verification. 8. It is contended on behalf of Selecting Body and also respondent No. 3 that there is nothing wrong in giving benefit available to candidates belonging to Hills to respondent No. 3, as he possesses hill certificate issued by the competent authority. 9. The petitioner, however, contends that since respondent No. 3 was not having hill certificate on the last date of submission of application and further, respondent No. 3 did not enclose/upload hill certificate with his application to the Selecting Body, therefore he is not entitled to the benefit available to hill candidates, especially when hill certificate was issued for the first time in favour of respondent No. 3, only on 26.11.2025. 10. This Court finds substance in the submission made by petitioner. 11. Respondent No. 3 was not meeting the eligibility condition as regards height mentioned in the advertisement. The online application submitted by him 3 2026:UHC:4394 is enclosed with the supplementary affidavit dated 18.05.2026 filed by Mr. Nandan Singh Dungariyal, Secretary, Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission. Perusal of online application reveals that respondent No. 3 mentioned his height as 164 cm. 12. Learned counsel appearing for Selecting Body submits that height of respondent No. 3 was found to be 160 cm only and due to incorrect information furnished by him, he was permitted to participate in the selection, as the Selecting Body had no mechanism available to determine height of a candidate before declaration of result of written examination. 13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no hesitation in holding that respondent No. 3 was not eligible to be recommended for appointment against a post reserved for hill candidate, when he obtained hill certificate much after last date of submission of online application. Every candidate who desires to claim a benefit which is available to a particular category has to submit supporting certificate declaring him to belong to that particular category, with his application form and he should also indicate in the application that he is claiming such benefit in the selection. 14. In the absence of any stipulation to the contrary in the advertisement, every candidate interested in claiming benefit available to candidates belonging to a special category must possess certificate, indicating that he belongs to such special category, on or before the last date of submission of application and he must 4 2026:UHC:4394 submit such certificate with his application before the Selecting Body. Since respondent No. 3 was not having hill certificate on the last date and such certificate was issued in his favour much after declaration of result of written examination, therefore such certificate could not have been relied upon by the Selecting Body for giving some benefit to respondent No. 3, which was available only to candidates belonging to hills. 15. In such view of the matter, recommendation made by Selecting Body in favour of respondent No. 3 is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside. 16. Writ petition is allowed. The vacancy which would arise on the post of Forester on account of this determination, shall be filled by picking up a candidate belonging to appropriate category from the waiting list, as per merit. 17. Petitioner contends that he has also challenged the requisition sent by State Government to Selecting Body. After unconditionally participating in the selection, which was held strictly as per requisition, petitioner cannot be permitted to question the requisition. In other words, petitioner is estopped from challenging the requisition at this belated stage. 18. The prayer made in that regard is, therefore, rejected. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 02.06.2026 Mahinder 5