IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) No. 85 of 2011 Pravesh Kumar S/o late Sri Girdhari Lal, R/o House No.105, Chaw Mandi, Roorkee, District Hardwar. ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Gurukul Kangari, Kankhal, Hardwar through its Secretary. 2. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary, Department of Personnel and Appointment, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 3. Secretary Department of Panchayat Raj and Rural Engineering Services, Government of Uttarakhand, Dehradun. 4. Sri Sanjai Singh S/o Sri Siddhi Lal, R/o Nursery Road, Srinagar, District Pauri Garhwal. ……………. Respondents Present: Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3. None for respondent No.4. Coram : Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, Chief Justice Hon’ble Servesh Kumar Gupta, Judge Date: 13th June, 2011 JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Counter affidavit filed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is kept with the record. 2. Private respondent has been served twice, once by registered post and later by Dasti. He has not responded to the notices, thus, served. 3. An advertisement was published. The purpose of the advertisement was to entice people having advertised eligibility to respond to the advertisement for the purpose of undergoing 2 selection process, so that they may be recommended for the vacant posts those were advertised. Since the vacant posts were available in several departments and since the advertisement contemplated one single selection process, the advertisement called for preference from the applicants. Private respondent gave his first preference in respect of Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan. In terms of the advertisement, one selection process was completed. Subsequent thereto, however, the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission prepared a list of recommendees containing the name of the private respondent for being appointed in the vacant advertised posts available in Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan. At the same time, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission prepared yet another list containing names of persons to be recommended for being appointed in an advertised vacant post available in another department. The name of private respondent also figured in the said list. As a result, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, in respect of two advertised posts, purported to decide to recommend one single individual, namely, the private respondent, which is not only against the spirit of the advertisement but contrary to discharge of public obligation vested in Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, namely, to select and recommend an appropriate person for a vacant post available in the State. In such view of the matter, it is declared that the decision of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to recommend private respondent for the advertised vacant post available in Uttarakhand Jal Sansthan is not interferable but the decision of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to recommend the private respondent for an advertised post available in another department is not only interferable but the same is hereby quashed. 4. In the event in view of the order as above, it transpires that with the merit that the petitioner had obtained in the selection process, he can be recommended for being appointed in one of the advertised posts in the said department, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is directed to look into the same and communicate its 3 decision to the petitioner in writing within a period of one month from the date of service of a copy of this order upon it. 5. This disposes of the writ petition. (Servesh Kumar Gupta, J.) ( Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 13.06.2011 13.06.2011 P. Singh