JUDGMENT : Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board issued an advertisement dated 08.09.2021 inviting applications for appointment on the post of Medical Officer. Petitioner responded to the said advertisement. His application however was rejected only on the ground that he could not upload the certificate of registration issued by Uttarakhand Medical Council with his application. Challenging the decision taken by the Selecting Body, petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. 2. Coordinate Bench vide order dated 16.12.2021 permitted petitioner to appear in the selection, but, his result was directed to be kept in a sealed cover. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner successfully completed MBBS course from Veer Chandra Singh Garhwal Government Institute of Medical Science and Research Institute, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal in the year 2018 and, his name was thereafter registered with Uttarakhand Medical Council in the year 2019. Annexure-1 to the Writ Petition is Certificate of Registration by Uttarakhand Medical Council, issued on 07.08.2019. His registration number is UK9371. 4. In paragraph 8 of the Writ Petition, it is stated that after registration, petitioner was serving as Medical Officer under the State Government and all his testimonials were available with the Director General, Medical Health, Uttarakhand, therefore, his application could not have been rejected for non-submission of Registration Certificate issued by Uttarakhand Medical Council. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without registration, State Government could not have appointed him as Medical Officer (on contract). Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that at the time of issuance of advertisement and submission of application, petitioner was serving as Medical Officer (on contract) in Primary Health Center, Jaurasi (Almora), which is a remote village in District Almora and due to poor internet connectivity, registration certificate could not be uploaded with his application form by petitioner. He further submits that during that period, due to Covid-19 Pandemic, the entire nation was facing emergent situation, therefore, it was not possible for petitioner to leave Primary Health Center, Jaurasi for submitting registration certificate before the Selecting Body. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that petitioner’s application was rightly rejected as he failed to upload registration certificate with his application form. He submits that since petitioner had uploaded not only the application form, but, other documents also, therefore, it cannot be believed that the place where petitioner was serving was not having proper internet connectivity. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that petitioner’s application was rightly rejected as he failed to upload registration certificate with his application form. He submits that since petitioner had uploaded not only the application form, but, other documents also, therefore, it cannot be believed that the place where petitioner was serving was not having proper internet connectivity. 7. From the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, it emerges that petitioner was serving as Medical Officer in a Primary Health Centre run by the State Health Department at the time advertisement was issued and also at the time when petitioner submitted application. 8. As per the relevant statute, a person possessing MBBS degree can practice medicine in State of Uttarakhand only after getting his name registered with Uttarakhand Medical Council. While submitting application, petitioner was serving as Medical Officer in a Primary Health Centre/Government Hospital, which fact is mentioned by him in the application form at Sr. No. 17, therefore, it can be safely inferred that his name was duly registered with the Uttarakhand Medical Council. It is not the case where a person was not having essential qualification on the last date of submission of application. 9. In a similar case, where, candidature of a person for appointment as Legal Advisor was rejected by the Selecting Body for non-submission of law degree, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that rejection of his candidature was not sustainable as the person concerned had submitted enrolment certificate issued by Bar Council of State with his application form. Paragraph nos. 15, 16 and 17 of the said judgment rendered in the case of Union Public Service Commission Vs. Gyan Prakash Srivastava reported in (2021) 1 SCC 537 are reproduced below:- “15. A reading of the plain language of the above reproduced provision makes it clear that no person can be admitted as an Advocate unless he has obtained Degree in Law. If he has obtained such degree after 12.3.1967, then he must have undergone a three years course of study in law from any University in India which is recognized for the purposes of the Act by the Bar Council of India. 16. If he has obtained such degree after 12.3.1967, then he must have undergone a three years course of study in law from any University in India which is recognized for the purposes of the Act by the Bar Council of India. 16. Since the respondent had attached with his application the certificate issued by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, which must have been issued keeping in view the fact that he possessed Degree in Law awarded by a University recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purpose of the Act and the certificates issued by different departments of the Central Government showing his employment on different posts (for two of these posts, Degree in Law was an essential qualification), the Commission was not at all justified in refusing to entertain his application for the post of Legal Advisor. The rejection of the respondent's application may have been justified only if it could be shown that Allahabad University is not recognized by the Bar Council of India for the purposes of the Act or that he had not undergone a 3-year degree course in law from that University. However, it is neither the pleaded case of the Commission nor has it been argued before us that Allahabad University is not recognized by the Bar Council of India or that the respondent had not undergone 3 years' course of study in law. 17. It is also not in dispute that the respondent had been appointed as Assistant (Legal) and Officer on Special Duty (Litigation) in the employment of the Central Government because he was having a Degree in Law and was duly selected by the Commission. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that rejection of the respondent's application for the post of Legal Advisor was per se illegal and arbitrary and the Tribunal and the High Court did not commit any error by quashing the decision of the Commission. True it is that the Commission is a constitutional body but its actions and decisions are not immune from judicial review and if a competent judicial forum finds that the impugned action is ultra vires the Constitution or any legislation or is otherwise arbitrary or discriminatory, there will be ample justification to nullify the same.” 10. True it is that the Commission is a constitutional body but its actions and decisions are not immune from judicial review and if a competent judicial forum finds that the impugned action is ultra vires the Constitution or any legislation or is otherwise arbitrary or discriminatory, there will be ample justification to nullify the same.” 10. In the said judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the rival contention of the parties, made the following observation in paragraph 23 of the judgment, which is reproduced below:- “23. In our view, even though the Division Bench of the High Court in UPSC case was right in not entertaining the respondents' plea that they could not produce LL.B. Degree Certificates because the same had not been made available by the University, it is not possible to approve the view that enrolment certificates issued by the Bar Council were not sufficient for treating the respondents eligible for the post of Assistant Public Prosecutor. Unfortunately, the Division Bench of the High Court did not give due weightage to the essential qualifications specified in the advertisement, i.e. a Degree in Law of a recognized University or equivalent and 3 years' experience at the Bar and the fact that one can gain experience at the Bar only by practicing as an Advocate and for that purpose enrolment with the Bar Council is sine qua non and, as mentioned above, the requirement of having passed the requisite examination in law is a must for enrolment as an Advocate with the Bar Council.” 11. The facts of the present case are also similar. The fact that petitioner is duly registered with Uttarakhand Medical Council was known not only to the State Government (Employer), but, also to the Selecting Body, by virtue of the disclosure made in clause 17 of the application by petitioner. 12. Petitioner could not have been appointed as Medical Officer, even on contract, under the State without such registration. This aspect was however overlooked by the Selecting Body. Thus, rejection of petitioner’s candidature cannot be said to be proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition. The impugned order dated 29.11.2021 issued by Secretary, Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board is quashed qua the petitioner. Respondent no. This aspect was however overlooked by the Selecting Body. Thus, rejection of petitioner’s candidature cannot be said to be proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. Accordingly, we allow the writ petition. The impugned order dated 29.11.2021 issued by Secretary, Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board is quashed qua the petitioner. Respondent no. 1 is directed to declare result of the petitioner within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.