Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 471 (UTT)

Ashish Negi v. State of Uttarakhand

2014-10-16

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2014
Judgment Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pande, Brief Holder, has accepted notices on behalf of the State/respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Issue notice to respondent No. 4. Steps to be taken within two weeks. In a selection process conducted by State Public Service Commission known as “Combined Lower Subordinate Services Examination, 2010”. The petitioner was selected to the post of Senior Cane Development Inspector. However, respondent No. 4 was also one of the candidates for the said selection, who has not been selected as his degree of B.Sc. in Agriculture and Animal Husbandry was not considered as a valid degree for B.Sc. (Agriculture) by the authority concerned. Aggrieved the petitioner (present respondent No. 4) filed a writ petition (WPSS No. 476 of 2013) before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 29.07.2013. Thereafter the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission preferred special appeal before the Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 11.03.2014. In pursuance of the order of the Division Bench of this Court and in the light of the observation made thereon, respondent No. 4 has been given appointed as a Senior Cane Development Inspector and the petitioner, who now comes in a lower merit, has been assigned to the post of Cane Development Inspector, which is admittedly a grade lower. There is nothing wrong, prima facie in the impugned order 01.10.2014 passed by respondent No. 3 – Commissioner, Cane & Sugar, Uttarakhand Kashipur, as the merits of the petitioner as well as respondent No. 4 has been considered in accordance with law and changes have been done in pursuance of the order of the Division Bench of this Court. However, learned counsel for the petitioner now come up with a case that respondent No. 4 meanwhile has been selected as an Agriculture Officer, in a different selection process, which is a higher post and he has also given an affidavit to this effect that he will be joining on that post. In view of fact that respondent No. 4 who would not be joining as Senior Cane Development Inspector, therefore, the reversion of the petitioner would in any case become futile. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 01.10.2014 passed by respondent No. 3 so far as reversion of the petitioner is concerned is hereby stayed. In view of fact that respondent No. 4 who would not be joining as Senior Cane Development Inspector, therefore, the reversion of the petitioner would in any case become futile. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 01.10.2014 passed by respondent No. 3 so far as reversion of the petitioner is concerned is hereby stayed. Learned counsel for the respondents shall file counter affidavits within three weeks. The petitioner may file rejoinder affidavit thereto, if any, be filed within three weeks thereafter. List this matter after seven weeks in the daily cause list.