IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 102 (S/B) of 2009 Dr. Birendra Kumar S/o of Shri Govind Ram Presently posted at Lecturer Government Ayurvedic Medical College Gurukul Kangari District Haridwar ………….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Medical Education Service, Uttarakhand Shashan, Secretariat, Dehradun 2. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Ayog Bhawan Gurukul Kangari Haridwar Through its Chairman …………. Respondents Sri B.N. Molakhi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyay, Brief Holder for the State-respondent No.1. Sri B.D. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2. Dated : November 06, 2009 Coram : Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (By the Court) By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to declare the result of the one post of Lecturer in Ras Shastra Evam Bheshjya Kalpana, reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate. 2. A delay condonation application CLMA No.9522/2009 for condonation of delay in filing the rejoinder 2 affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 has been moved by the petitioner. The application is allowed. Delay is condoned. Rejoinder affidavit be taken on record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the affidavits, counter affidavits and rejoinder affidavits. 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no.2 issued an advertisement No.03/Seva/2004-05 in daily Newspaper inviting applications for the post of Professors, Readers and Lecturers in various Government Ayurvedic Degree Colleges in the State of Uttarakhand, on 16.03.2005. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Lecturer in Ras Shastra Evam Bheshjya Kalpana. It is further stated in the writ petition that petitioner was called for interview on 24.10.2007 and he was interviewed. It is further stated that petitioner was fully qualified for the post for which he was interviewed. It is further stated that a writ petition No.254 (S/B) of 2007 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand and others was filed before this Court praying that short listing process adopted by Public Service Commission on the basis of marks obtained in B.A.M.S. degree, be quashed. The said writ petition was finally allowed by this Court on 07.08.2008 with certain directions. The present petitioner’s case is that he is a member of scheduled caste and had applied to the post which was reserved for scheduled caste. It is also stated in the present writ petition that without any justification, the respondents have held up the result in 3 respect of the post for which the petitioner was an applicant which was reserved for the scheduled caste. Hence this writ petition. 5. In the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.1, it is stated that since the selection process is conducted by respondent no.2, it is for that respondent No. 2 to declare the result in question. 6. Respondent No.2 has filed its counter affidavit and it has been stated that in the subject of Ras Shastra Evam Bheshjya Kalpana short listing process was applied by the respondent no.2 on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates in BAMS degree as such the selection process thereof has been cancelled in view of the judgment and order passed by this Court in writ petition no.254 (S/B) of 2007 Dr. Ramesh Chandra Tiwari and others Vs. Public Service Commission Uttarakhand and others. It is further stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.2 that further process of selection by way of scrutiny test is under progress. Thus, the result for the post could not be declared. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the post in question i.e. Lecturer in Ras Shastra Evam Bheshjya Kalpana was reserved for the scheduled caste. Only two candidates belonging to scheduled caste were the applicants and both of them were called for interview. It was only the present petitioner who turned up for the interview. This fact has been stated specifically in para no.17 of the writ petition. Said fact is admitted by respondent no.2 in the 4 para 13 of its counter affidavit. That being so, there should not have been any difficulty in declaring the result of the petitioner whether as to whether he stood selected or not. 8. Once averments made in the writ petition that two candidates applied for the post reserved for the scheduled caste for the subject of Ras Shastra Evam Bheshjya Kalpana and both of them were called for interview are admitted, there was no question of cancellation of the selection process on the ground of short listing. That being so, the judgment and order dated 07.08.2008 passed by this Court in writ petition no.254 (S/B) of 2007 should not have been taken as hurdle for declaration of result for the post of Lecturer in Ras Shastra Evam Bheshjya Kalpana, reserved for the scheduled caste candidate. 9. For the reasons as discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. Respondent no.2 is directed to declare the result for the post of Lecturer in Ras Shastra Evam Bheshjya Kalpana, reserved for the scheduled caste. (Alok Singh, J.) (Prafulla C. Pant, J) 06.11.2009 JKJ/Ravi