Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8579 (UTT)

Vinod Kumar v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-01-08

Manoj Kumar Tiwari

body2026
JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Petitioners responded to an advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for appointment as Sub Inspector in Civil Police. They earlier served in Indian Army, therefore, they claimed benefit available to Ex-Servicemen in State services. Petitioners were declared unsuccessful in the written examination, because they could not secure the minimum marks fixed by the competent authority. In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the notification dated 29.8.2025, issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, whereby marks scored by the last candidate selected in different categories was disclosed by the Commission. As per the said notification, marks scored by the last candidate belonging to Ex-Servicemen category, selected for the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) is 151.2662, while marks of last candidate selected for appointment as Sub Inspector (LIU) is 154.0623. Since the written examination was of 300 marks, therefore, the marks scored by last selected candidate in Ex-Servicemen category is more than 50 per cent. 2. Petitioners contend that since the recruitment rules do not prescribe a separate benchmark for candidates belonging to Ex- Servicemen category, therefore, petitioners cannot be disqualified in the selection and they are entitled to be recommended for appointment, if sufficient number of vacancies are available for them. It is contended that there are as many as seven vacancies, earmarked for Ex-Servicemen category, against which no recommendation was made for want of suitable candidates, therefore petitioners are entitled to be recommended against those vacancies. 3. The mode of recruitment and other conditions of service for the post of Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police/Intelligence) are governed by statutory rules notified on 24.1.2019. Rule 14 of the said rules lays down the procedure of direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector. Appendix-4 to the said rules provides that written test shall be of 300 marks. Item (4) of Appendix-4, on which heavy reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the petitioners, reads as under: “(4) In the written test the candidates of unreserved category and other backward classes shall have to secure 50% marks and those of schedule caste/schedule tribes shall have to secure 40% marks and thereafter only they shall be included in the merit list.” 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the regulations framed by the selecting body, known as Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Examination Result Preparation Procedure) Regulations, 2022. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the regulations framed by the selecting body, known as Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Examination Result Preparation Procedure) Regulations, 2022. According to said regulations, the qualifying marks for the candidates belonging to Ex- Servicemen category is 25 per cent in preliminary/screening test, 30 per cent in written examination and 35 per cent in the final selection. Thus it is contended that the qualifying marks mentioned in the procedure regulations framed by the selecting body would be applicable and petitioners cannot be disqualified merely because they failed to score 50 per cent marks in the written examination. 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the selecting body, however, submits that none of the petitioners could secure even 35 per cent marks in the written examination. He submits that as per the pleadings made in para no. 14 of the writ petition, petitioner no. 1 secured 33% marks, petitioner no. 2 secured 21% marks and petitioner no. 3 secured 16% marks, thus all of them secured less than 35% marks. It is further submitted that reliance on the procedure regulations is misplaced as the same also do not help the case of petitioners. It is further contended that selection has to be held strictly as per the recruitment rules and the procedure regulations are framed by the selecting body for regulating its internal affairs and eligibility of a candidate has to be determined based on recruitment rules, framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. 6. This Court finds substance in the submissions made by learned Counsel for the selecting body. The procedure regulations are framed under Section 11(1) of U.P. Public Service Commission (Regulation of Procedure) Act, 1985. Section 11(1) of the said Act reads as under: “11(1) The Commission may make rules not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act for the regulation of its procedure.” 7. The benchmark/qualifying mark indicated in the regulations would be applicable for posts regarding which recruitment rules do not prescribe any minimum cut-off marks. Here the Service Rules prescribe a benchmark, therefore, the procedure regulations cannot override the Service Rules framed by the State Government. 8. Law is well settled that the recruitment rules, framed by the State under its rule making power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, govern the field and eligibility conditions, mode and criterion of selection etc. 8. Law is well settled that the recruitment rules, framed by the State under its rule making power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, govern the field and eligibility conditions, mode and criterion of selection etc. are regulated by the recruitment rules. The procedure regulations, if framed by the selecting body, can regulate affairs of the selecting body, including the procedure to be followed while holding the selection, however, eligibility of a candidate and the minimum qualifying marks needed for selection has to be determined only with reference to the relevant recruitment rules. Thus the recruitment rules will have precedence over the procedure regulations framed by the Public Service Commission. In other words, the procedure regulations, relied upon by petitioners, which were framed in 2022, shall be subservient to the recruitment rules. 9. Admittedly, petitioners applied pursuant to advertisement dated 31.1.2024. Appendix-4 to said advertisement indicates that minimum marks required for selection would be 40 per cent for persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, while other candidates will be required to secure minimum 50 per cent marks for selection. The advertisement discloses that the condition regarding minimum qualifying marks is borrowed from Appendix-4 of the relevant recruitment rules. Thus every candidate had notice that he will have to secure the minimum cut-off marks in the selection, in terms of the requirement of the recruitment rules. After having participated in the selection with eyes wide open, petitioners cannot question the notification dated 29.8.2025, Annexure-4 to the writ petition is the notification, whereby cut- off marks for different category of persons was published. Admittedly, the marks secured by last selected candidate in Ex-Servicemen category is more than 50 per cent, which is strictly as per the recruitment rules. Challenge thrown by the petitioners to the impugned notification and/or cut-off marks is, therefore, without substance. 10. Since the field is covered by Statutory Rules, therefore, for claiming relaxation in the condition of qualifying marks, petitioners would have to show some express provision. The Recruitment Rules, however, exempt candidates belonging to SC/ST alone and for others, benchmark fixed is 50%. In the absence of any express provision for relaxation, persons belonging to Ex-Servicemen category will be required to score 50% marks for selection. 11. The Recruitment Rules, however, exempt candidates belonging to SC/ST alone and for others, benchmark fixed is 50%. In the absence of any express provision for relaxation, persons belonging to Ex-Servicemen category will be required to score 50% marks for selection. 11. Although Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has framed Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (Examination Result Preparation Procedure) Regulations, 2022, in which minimum cut-off marks for different reserved categories is prescribed, however the said rules would be applicable in selection to such posts for which no minimum cut-off marks is prescribed in the relevant recruitment rules framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. As mentioned above, in the recruitment rules for the post of Sub Inspector, minimum benchmark of 50% has been fixed for persons belonging to all other categories except Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, for whom minimum benchmark fixed is 40%. Petitioners are claiming relaxation in the requirement of benchmark, but learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to show any provision in the recruitment rules, which entitles Ex-Servicemen to a lower benchmark. 12. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court do not find any scope to interfere in the matter. Since none of the petitioner could secure even 35 per cent marks, therefore, reliance upon procedure regulations is also misplaced. Writ petition thus fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.