WPSS/15/2019 of SMT. KOMAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the

petitioner.

Mr. Shushil Vashistha, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

It is not disputed by any counsel that these three writ petitions involve common question of fact and law; as such they are being decided together.

The factual backdrop as involved and argued in the present writ petitions are that the respondent herein had acquired the land of the various tenure holders for the project of respondents commonly called as, “Lakhwar-Vyasi Project”. As consequence of the acquisition, the land losers or one of the dependants of the family was supposed to be granted, an appointment for which an advertisement was issued by the respondent being Advertisement No. RECTT/01/2016 on 07.06.2016, by virtue of which, as many as 23 posts were made available for appointment of class-3 employees as per column 2 of the advertisement.

Before venturing further, it would be relevant to point out that the argument as extended by the learned counsel for the respondent is that in accordance with the clause-3 of the terms of the said advertisement the selection was to be regulated by clause-3 in the manner in which the forms were required to be filed and the prerequisites required for selection, which was floated on the website of respondent which provided for reservations. which was supplied by the respondent on their website, which according to the respondent included the adherence of the provisions of the reservation to be made available to the 23 posts, which was to be filled in. Clause-3 is quoted hereunder:

“3. ;g foKkiu flQZ laf{kIr gS rFkk foLr`r foKkiu ;wtsoh,u fyfeVsM dh oSclkbZV www.ujvnl.comds HR-Recruitment “kh’kZd ds vUrxZr vkosnu i= dks

MkmuyksM dj fu/kkZfjr “kqYd tek djokdj Loizekf.kr vk;q lEcU/kh izek.k&i=] “kSf{kd ;ksX;rk izek.k&i=] tkfr@mitkfr lEcU/kh l{ke vf/kdkjh dk izek.k i=] vuqHko izek.k i= ,oa lEcfU/kr vU; dksbZ izek.k i= cUn fyQkQs esa LihM iksLV@iathd`r Mkd ls fuEu irs ij foyEcre fnukad 30-06-2016 rd Hkstuk lqfuf”pr djsaA fyQkQs ds “kh’kZ Hkkx esa vkosfnr inuke vafdr djuk vko”;d gSA nsj ls izkIr vkosnu&i=ksa ij fopkj fd;k tkuk lEHko ugha gksxkA”

The case of the petitioners are that after the conclusion of the process of selection, which was held as back on 31.08.2016, which was held as against the 23 posts but out of it only 18 posts have already been filled-in and five posts are still remaining vacant against which petitioner is claim.

The contention of the petitioners are that their candidature deserves to be considered as against those five vacant posts available, five posts against which the petitioners have participated in the process of selection.

Apart from the fact that the process of selection stood culminated as back as on 31.08.2016 and the petitioners have invoked the writ jurisdiction for the redressal of the so called grievance at highly belated stage by filing the writ petitions only for the first time on 03.01.2019, this writ petition suffers from the vices of laches, which too has not been properly explained.

Besides this, even the claim of the petitioner for the relief is not sustainable on merits for the reason that according to the respondent the five posts which are allegedly vacant against which the petitioners raise claim to be appointed are the posts which are not available to be filled-in from amongst the candidates belonging to the category of the petitioners as it would reserved for the reserve category candidates in terms of the clause-3 of the advertisement.

Thus, this Court finds no merit in the writ petition.

Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)

10.01.2019