IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 266 of 2008 (S/B) Dr. Rajesh Kumar. ………. Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. ..………. Respondents Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Narendra Bali, Advocate for respondent Nos. 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. BARIN GHOSH, C. J. (Oral) On 26th April, 2008, an advertisement was published by the office of the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services, Uttarakhand, Dehradun. In that advertisement, it was held out, amongst others, that for the post of Lecturer (Ras Shastra and Bhaijasya Kalpana), three posts are available; of them, one is reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates, one for Other Backward Class candidates and the remaining one is available for all and sundry. It was indicated that the said posts are contractual posts available for only one year. Petitioner, a member of the Other Backward Class community, responded to the said advertisement. He was the only other Backward Class candidate who responded the said advertisement. He was called for interview. Thereafter, he was not selected. Instead, out of the three posts available; a member of the Scheduled Caste community was selected for appointment in one of those posts and two people were selected for appointment in the remaining two posts. Both of them were declared to be members belonging to open category. While, however, doing so, it was indicated that only one post is available for open category candidates. If one post was available for open category candidates, question of appointing two persons, belonging to open category, did not arise. This aspect of the matter has not been explained in the counter affidavit. However, it has been contended that, in 2004, a requisition was given to the Public Service Commission in respect of those three posts, indicating that two of them are available for open category candidates and 2 the remaining for Scheduled Caste candidates. It was contended that, in 2005, the Commission published an advertisement for filling-up those posts. It was contended that since the Commission was delaying in making recommendation for appointment in those posts, for exigency, it was decided to fill-up those posts by contractual appointments, which would last only for one year. It was contended that, while such step was taken by the Directorate, a mistake crept-up in the advertisement. 2. We do not accept what has been stated in the counter affidavit. The requisition of 2004, relied upon, though do not indicate that there was a reserved vacancy in any of those three posts for a member belonging to Other Backward Classes, but the fact remains that the said requisition, itself, indicated that posts are available for Lecturers in other subjects, which are reserved for Other Backward Class communities, but the advertisement published by the Commission does not indicate any such vacancy. Furthermore, from the recommendation of the selection committee, being Annexure 3 to the writ petition, it is crystal clear that the selectors knew that only one post is available for open category candidates, but despite that, they recommended two persons belonging to open category for being appointed. The logical conclusion would be that, deliberately, the selection committee did not select a member of the Other Backward Class community, despite advertising a reserved post for the said community. 3. Though the instant writ petition was filed on 21st October, 2008 and though we are ad idem with the contention of the petitioner that, for no just reason, a member belonging to the Other Backward Class community was not selected for the appointments in question, but still then we are unable to give any relief to the petitioner, inasmuch as, the period of advertised appointments has come to an end. We cannot find fault with respondent No. 5, who was recommended as the second candidate for being appointed as a member belonging to open category, inasmuch as, she had no role to play in her selection contrary to the advertisement 3 except offering herself as a candidate for one of the advertised vacancies that was available for open category candidates. 4. We, thus, close the matter and dispose of the writ petition. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C. J.) 12.09.2011 12.09.2011 G