WPSS/318/2022 of PADAM SINGH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Court: Uttarakhand High Court
Decision date: 2022-11-23
Case number: 318 of 2022

Parties

Secretary (PETITIONER)
Sarla and others. In fact, the learned (RESPONDENT)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Body

|**SL.** **No**|**Date**|**Office Notes,** **reports, orders or** **proceedings or** **directions and** **Registrar’s order** **with Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|||||WPSS No. 318 of 2022 **Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.** Mr. Abhilash Nainwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. C.S.C. for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Lalit Samant, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Ms. Pragati Sanwal, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. The petitioner is an ex-army man and was an aspirant for being considered for recruitment in the process of filling up the vacancies of Junior Engineers (Electrical and Mechanical), which are being conducted by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 21stSeptember, 2016. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is, that in the process of selection, which was to be resorted to by the Commission, the petitioner since being an ex army man, he would be entitled for the benefit of horizontal reservation, which was to be made available to ex-army personnel in the process of selection. But|

|admittedly, when the petitioner had responded to|
|---|
|the advertisement, he never opted his candidature to|
|be considered as against the post, which were kept|
|reserved for an ex-army personnel. In fact, at much belated stage, now in 2022, he wants rectification and introduction of a|
|category of option in his application, which he has|
|already submitted online, while responding to the|
|advertisement, which was issued by the|
|respondents. This Court is of the view that such type of opting for category now, in order to avail the|
|benefit of reservation, if at all, it was available for|
|the petitioner to avail, it could have been at the time|
|when he had submitted his application on online|
|basis, while responding to the advertisement and|
|not by way of judicial interference to permit him|
|to opt for the said category by judicial order, by|
|introducing an option. The learned counsel for the petitioner has made reference to judgement rendered by the|
|Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|in Letters Patent Appeal No. 320 of 2019 (O&M),|
|Haryana Staff Selection Commission through its|
|Secretary Vs. Sarla and others. In fact, the learned|
|counsel for the petitioner has made reference to|
|para 5 of the judgement, which was altogether in a|
|different context, where the Division Bench of|
|Punjab and Haryana High Court, was ceased with|
|and was considering fact, where the candidates,|

||||who were applying in pursuance to the advertisement, were not facilitated with the technical appliances or the devices in order to enable them to apply in time on, on online basis and it was that discrepancy, which was being considered in the said judgement, which was altogether in different set of facts and circumstances, because here, in the present case, the petitioner has already applied on online basis, and hence, no benefit of the judgement of the Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court could be extended to the petitioner. Consequently, the Writ Petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. **(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)** Dated 03.03.2022 Shiv|
|---|---|---|---|