Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 199 (UTT)

Samridhi Mamgain v. State of Uttarakhand

2023-02-22

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, VIPIN SANGHI

body2023
JUDGMENT : Vipin Sanghi, J. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to seek a direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner successful in the preliminary examination undertaken by her under Roll No. 232576 for the post as provided at Sl. No. 1 (consolidated post) of the cut off list to permit her to participate in mains examination of Uttarakhand Combined State Civil / Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2021. The petitioner also assails the Notification dated 06.02.2023, issued by the Uttarakhand Combined State Civil / Upper Subordinate Services Examination, in so far as it relates to the petitioner, whereby she has been excluded from the list of candidates, who have been declared eligible to take the mains examination. 2. The respondents advertised a large number of posts vide Notification dated 10.08.2021. The petitioner, who is a woman, domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand, offered her candidature. Under the recruitment process, a three tier procedure was stipulated by the respondents, namely, a preliminary examination; followed by a mains examination by those who meet the cut off fixed by the respondents in the preliminary examination, and; followed by an interview. The preliminary examination was held on 03.04.2022. The result of the preliminary examination was declared on 26.05.2022, in which 5351 candidates were declared as successful. Pertinently, the petitioner was not declared as successful, as a female domiciled in Uttarakhand, for whom reservation was provided to the extent of 30%. This was because the petitioner did not meet the cut off marks which were fixed as 78.649. 3. The reservation granted to women, domiciled in Uttarakhand, was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 355 of 2022. We passed an interim order, holding that reservation could not be limited only for women candidates domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand, and directed that such reservation for women should apply across the board, i.e., for all women whether, or not, they were domiciled in the State of Uttarakhand. There was another petition preferred before this Court, being Writ Petition (PIL) No. 133 of 2022, Satya Dev Tyagi Vs State of Uttarakhand and others. In pursuance of the orders passed in that petition, the respondents issued yet another cut off list. On this occasion, the petitioner’s name was included in the female candidates declared successful in the preliminary examination. 4. In pursuance of the orders passed in that petition, the respondents issued yet another cut off list. On this occasion, the petitioner’s name was included in the female candidates declared successful in the preliminary examination. 4. The order passed by this Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 355 of 2022, was challenged before the Supreme Court, and was stayed by the Supreme Court, and in the meantime, the State Legislature enacted the Uttarakhand Public Service (Horizontal Reservation for Women) Act, 2022, once again, statutorily reserving the 30% reservation for Uttarakhand women. In pursuance of the said reservation statutorily granted, the respondents issued a fresh cut off list, as a result of which, the petitioner again stands ousted. The petitioner is aggrieved by the said action of the respondents. 5. We have heard the learned counsels, and we are of the view that there is no merit in this petition. The petitioner was not declared successful in the preliminary examination- in the result originally declared on 26.05.2022. With the enactment of the Uttarakhand Public Service (Horizontal Reservation for Women) Act, 2022, and on account of the stay of the order passed by us in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 355 of 2022, the position has been reverted to what it was when the advertisement was issued, and the preliminary result was declared on 26.05.2022. That being the position, the exclusion of the petitioner in the merit list / cut off, now circulated by the respondents, wherein the petitioner did not find her name amongst the successful candidates in the preliminary examination, cannot be faulted. Merely because the petitioner may have been declared as successful on 19.10.2022, would not vest any right in her, as there is no estoppel against the law. 6. We, therefore, did not find any merit in this petition. The same is, accordingly, dismissed.