IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.175 of 2007 (S/B) Krishna Kant Misra ………..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and another ….Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate assisted by Mrs. Indu Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1. Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for the respondent no.2. Dated: 9th September, 2010 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh, C.J. (Oral) In terms of the earlier order of this Court, the Public Service Commission has brought on record the advertisement published in the year 2002 as well as the corrigendum thereto. 2. The undisputed facts of this case are that the writ petitioner responded to the said advertisement and thereupon he was permitted to take part in the selection process. After the selection process was completed, merit of the petitioner, assessed in course of the selection process, was notified. With such merit, the petitioner could not be recommended for being appointed to any of the posts advertised. He, however, missed the recommendation for not being able to obtain three more marks. Later on the petitioner came to learn that no wait list has also been prepared. In the writ petition, petitioner has contended that many a recommended candidates did not join their posts and, 2 accordingly, the petitioner ought to have had been recommended for being appointed in those posts. It is the contention of the petitioner that on 31st January, 1994, the State of Uttar Pradesh took a decision to keep and maintain a wait list. The said decision was rescinded on 15th November, 1999. However, the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, by its judgment rendered on 17th July, 2002, quashed the said decision dated 15th November, 1999. According to the petitioner, in view of the said judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad dated 17th July, 2002, the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, taken on 15th November, 1999, not to keep and maintain a wait list, stood removed w.e.f. 15th November, 1999. It is the contention of the petitioner that in such circumstances, the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 31st January, 1994, which was governing the field at the time of creation of the State of Uttarakhand, became the law governing field, applicable to the State of Uttarakhand and, as such, in terms thereof, it was incumbent on the part of the State of Uttarakhand and on its functionaries, to keep and maintain a wait list. 3. It is not in dispute that the State of Uttarakhand, until the date of publication of the advertisement and its corrigendum or even until completion of the selection process, did not make any law pertaining to preparation of a wait list. At the same time, the advertisement and the corrigendum thereto, as produced, did not hold out that any wait list will be prepared. At the same time, however, in the advertisement it was mentioned in clear terms that all laws applicable to the selection, being the subject matter of the advertisement, would apply. The petitioner contends that in the backdrop of what has been stated above, the law contained in the decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 31st January, 1994 was applicable to the selection, being the subject matter of the writ petition and, accordingly, it was incumbent to prepare a wait list, in terms of the said decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 31st January, 1994. 4. The fact remains that the decision dated 31st January, 1994 of the State of Uttar Pradesh was withdrawn by the State of Uttar Pradesh by a subsequent decision dated 15th November, 1994. It is also not disputed that the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad on 17th July, 2000, quashed the decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh taken on 15th November, 1999, and, accordingly, with effect from 15th November, 1999, the said decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh stood oblitered. 5. In the circumstances, the only question that requires determination is what is the effect of obliteration of the decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 15th November, 1999, by reason of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad on 17th July, 2002, in so far as the State of Uttarakhand is concerned. 4 6. As on 9th November, 2000, all laws applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh, became applicable to the State of Uttarakhand in the same force as they were in force in the State of Uttar Pradesh, immediately before the State of Uttarakhand was created. Accordingly, as on that date, the law contained in the decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 15th November, 1999 was the law applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. The said law was quashed subsequent to the creation of the State of Uttarakhand by the High Court of Allahabad on 17th July, 2002 and, accordingly, the said decision of the Uttar Pradesh dated 15th November, 1999 stood oblitered w.e.f. 15th November, 1999, in so far as the State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned, but not the State of Uttarakhand. Once the law became applicable to the State of Uttarakhand, the same could only be oblitered by a judgment rendered on notice to and in presence of the State of Uttarakhand, and in particular, after giving notice to the Advocate General to the State of Uttarakhand. That having not been done, the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad dated 17th July, 2002, pertaining to the decision of State of Uttar Pradesh dated 15th November, 1999, is restricted only to the State of Uttar Pradesh. 7. That being the situation, we cannot hold that the State of Uttarakhand, in the facts and circumstances of the case, was obliged to prepare a wait list. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 09.09.2010 09.09.2010 Arpan