IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 144 of 2006 Uttaranchal State Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal at Haridwar, Through its Secretary. ......….. Appellant Versus 1. Om Prakash S/o Sri Indrapal Singh, R/o Mudiakala, Post Office Bazpur, District Udham Singh Nagar. 2. State of Uttarakhand, through the Secretary, Education (Intermediate) Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. 3. Director of Education (Intermediate Education), State of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 4. University Grants Commission, through its Chairman, New Delhi. …...... Respondents Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Brief Holder for respondents Nos. 2 & 3. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for respondent No. 4. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Respondent No. 1 has been served but is absent despite service. 2. Writ Petition No. 268 of 2006 (S/S), filed by respondent No. 1, was disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide the impugned judgment dated 3rd March, 2006 by issuing a direction, which in effect and substance, meant that the writ petitioner was permitted to appear in the interview and, at the same time, he was given liberty to move a representation before respondent No. 4 herein, namely University Grants Commission, with respect to determining and finding out whether the academic qualification possessed by the writ petitioner was equivalent to the qualification prescribed for eligibility. 3. In our considered opinion, in the absence of respondent No. 4, the aforesaid direction ought not have been issued by the learned Single Judge especially when the learned Single Judge did not have enough material before him to decide about the issue of equivalence of academic qualification. Apart from this, the fact whether the writ petitioner was eligible or not for appearance in the interview had, first, to be determined before he could be allowed to participate in the interview. 4. For the foregoing reasons, we set aside the impugned judgment, but leaving all the aforesaid questions open for re-determination and direct that the writ petition shall be heard afresh and disposed of on merits and in accordance with law by inviting the counter affidavits of all the respondents in the writ petition. 5. Since this order has been passed in the absence of the writ petitioner/ respondent No. 1, it goes without saying that the writ petition shall be processed further only after due notice to the writ petitioner. 6. The appeal is allowed. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C.J.) 13.02.2008 13.02.2008 G