IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 261 of 2010 Rinku Verma & others ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand, through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Dehadun & others ………. Respondents With Writ Petition No. (S/B) No. 149 of 2010 Ashok Kumar Saini & another ……… Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand, through Chief Secretary Civil Secretariat, Dehadun & others ………. Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for State/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent No. 4 Date of Judgment: 22.11.2010 JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble Nirmal Yadav, J. BARIN GHOSH, C.J. (ORAL) In the matter of recruitment of persons other than District Judges to the Judicial Service, in accordance with the mandate contained in Article 234 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of the State is required to make Rules after consultation with the State Public Service Commission and this High Court. Such Rules have been made. 2. It is the contention of the petitioners that they made representations to alter the Rules. It is their further contention that some steps were taken in furtherance to their representations. However, the Rules have not yet been altered. The recruitment process commenced on the basis of unaltered Rules. Petitioners knew well, inasmuch, as they were informed by the advertisement, what the Rules were and how the Rules direct selection of the candidates. The Rules made it explicit that in order to be selected at the written examination, a candidate is required to secure 60 per cent of the marks. Knowing fully well the Rules, as stood, 2 and further knowing that the Rules have not yet been altered, petitioners offered themselves for being selected. They failed to secure 60 per cent in the written examination. 3. In the writ petitions, they are seeking a mandamus upon the Governor of the State to alter the Rules with retrospective effect. First of all, the Court does not have any power to do what the petitioners are seeking the Court to do. Secondly, petitioners having had taken chance and having had failed in their attempt, cannot turn around and contend that the Rules, under which they took chance, are required to be altered. 4. The writ petitions are without any merit and the same are dismissed. 5. It, however, transpired, in course of hearing these writ petitions, that this High Court has made a recommendation, in the month of April 2010, to the Governor of the State for alteration of the Rules to some extent. It would be appropriate on our part, therefore, to request the Governor of the State to consult the State Public Service Commission on the recommendations of this Court and, thereafter, to do the needful at an early date and preferably before the process of selecting the next batch commences. (Nirmal Yadav, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 22.11.2010 22.11.2010 Aswal