HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.09 of 2010 (S/B) Manisha Verma & others …Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ...Respondents Dated : August 31st 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) Mr. Avtar Singh Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate for respondent no.2. 2. In 2003 an advertisement was published indicating therein that, amongst others, there are 94 vacancies available for the posts of Upper Division Assistant in the Secretariat and 11 vacancies in the posts of Upper Division Clerks in Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand. The petitioners responded to the said advertisement and being satisfied that they are eligible for being appointed to the said posts, they were invited to appear for a written examination. The petitioners appeared in the said examination and thereafter on 9th March, 2004 the State Public Service Commission, who conducted the examination, declared result of the examination and recommended the petitioners along with 91 others for being appointed as Upper Division Assistants in 2 the Secretariat. Such recommendation was accepted and accordingly on 28th April, 2004 the State Government appointed the petitioner no.1 as Upper Division Assistant in the Secretariat. By similar such orders all dated 28th April, 2004 the other petitioners were also appointed as such. The petitioners since then worked as Upper Division Assistants in the Secretariat. They completed their probation and they were thereupon considered for promotion to the next higher post. By reason of the aforementioned actions on the part of State Public Service Commission and the State Government, the petitioners earned their status as employees of the State as mentioned above. 3. Subsequent thereto on 24th December, 2009, the State Public Service Commission while referring to its aforementioned recommendation held out in a letter written to the State Government that while making the said recommendation, it did not take into account the marks obtained by some of the reserved candidates, who by reason of the marks obtained by them ought to have had been selected as open category candidates but were shown to have succeeded as reserved candidates. It therefore, suggested alteration of the said recommendation by deleting four of the candidates from the open category and by including four of the reserved category candidates in the open category, resulting in paving the way of making recommendation of four more reserved category candidates. The four persons, who would thus be affected by the said recommendation dated 24th December, 2009, includes the three petitioners 3 before us. Feeling that the petitioners may be affected in the event the said recommendation dated 24th December, 2009 is accepted as the status bestowed upon them by the action of the State Public Service Commission and the State Government would be affected, the petitioners filed the present writ petition. The State Government has disclosed that it has not yet taken any decision on the said recommendation dated 24th December, 2009. 4. We feel that the State Government is required to take a decision on the said recommendation dated 24th December, 2009, inasmuch as, four people belonging to reserved category did not get appointments despite they having been selected for appointments. We however, feel that while taking a decision to appoint those four candidates, the State Government, in the facts and circumstances narrated above, cannot in any event interfere with the appointments of the petitioners, inasmuch as, in the matter of obtaining such appointments the petitioners had no role to play and at the same time by reason of the said appointments, the status of the petitioners were altered by the State Government. It must be kept in mind that the petitioners had no role to play until the appointments in question were given to them, after they had appeared in the examination. It was the Commission who evaluated the examination given by the petitioners and thereupon it made recommendation and the said recommendation having been accepted by the State Government, the petitioners obtained the appointments. Upon obtaining such appointments the petitioners have been 4 permitted to work for more than six years. In other words, the petitioners after having been accorded the status of Upper Division Assistant attached to the Secretariat for a period in excess of six years cannot be denied of such status, for in the matter of conferment of such status, it is the State Public Service Commission and the State Government played the entire role and to that the petitioners had nothing to do. At the same time, the people who for the mistake of the State Public Service Commission were not appointed cannot be left in lurch. We feel that they should also be accommodated by the State Government but without disturbing the status of the petitioners. The writ petition is disposed of with the directions as above. (V.K.Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 31.08.2010 Arti