HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.64 of 2010 (S/B) Dr. Pradeep Singh S/o Shri Mahavir Singh … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents And Writ Petition No.63 of 2010 (S/B) Dr. Amit Uniyal S/o Bhagwati Prasad Uniyal … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents And Writ Petition No.65 of 2010 (S/B) Dr. Deepak Bhandari S/o Shri Mohan Singh Bhandari … Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others … Respondents And Writ Petition No.66 of 2010 (S/B) Smt. Himani Bhandari, W/o Major Vivek Bhandari … Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Public Service Commission & another … Respondents Dated:- 22nd September, 2010 Coram: Hon. Tarun Agarwala, J. Hon. V. K. Bist, J. Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. (Oral) Since all the writ petitions raise a common issue, the same is being decided together. 2. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No.64/2010 (S/B), Mr. V. Kaparwan, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, the learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No.63/2010 (S/B), Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, the learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No.65/2010 (S/B), Mr. Manoj Sah, the learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No.66/2010 (S/B) and Mr. B.D. Kandpal, the learned counsel assisted by Mr. B. D. Pandey, the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal. 3. The Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 10.04.2009 inviting applications for the post of Medical Officer (Homeopathic). The petitioner contended that he holds a degree in Homeopathy and was eligible as per the eligible conditions mentioned in the advertisement and accordingly applied for the post. The Public Service Commission, by the impugned order dated 26th March, 2010, had rejected the candidature of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is not registered with the Homeopathic Medicine Board, Uttarakhand. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 4. A perusal of the qualifications referred in the impugned advertisement indicates that the applicant should have a degree in the Homeopathy and that the applicant should be duly registered with the Homeopathic Medicine Board, Uttarakhand. The contention of the petitioner is that he had applied for the registration with the said Board on 31st October, 2008 and had paid a sum of Rs.2,000/- towards registration charges and that the Board had issued a provisional / temporary registration certificate dated 25th April, 2009 indicating therein that the permanent registration certificate would be issued after due verification. Based on the temporary registration certificate, the petitioner had applied, which had been rejected by the impugned order. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission is that the temporary registration is not permissible and that a permanent registration certificate is necessary for a candidate to apply for the post. 6. This court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, issued an interim order dated 23.04.2010 directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the interview, which would be subject 3 to further orders of the court. Based on the interim order, the petitioner and similarly situated persons, who were issued temporary registration certificate, were also permitted by the Commission to appear in the interview. 7. In our view, the advertisement does not make any distinction between temporary registration and regular registration. The petitioner, holding a temporary registration, would be deemed to be eligible for consideration in terms of the eligibility criteria depicted in the advertisement. 8. In view of the aforesaid, the Commission has committed an error in rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner held a temporary registration certificate. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. 9. Today, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by the petitioner indicating therein that the Board has issued a regular certificate after due verification. We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition directing the Commission to declare the results and further direct that in the event a candidate, holding a temporary registration certificate is appointed, the said appointment would be subject to the production of a regular registration certificate from the competent authority. (V. K. Bist, J.) (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 22.09.2010 LSR