IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Chapter VIII, Rule 32(2) (b) Description of case Writ Petition No. 78 of 2007 (S/B) Date of decision: 7th August, 2007 A.F.R. (Approved for Reporting) ___________________________ Not Approved for Reporting Date Initials of Judge Note: Bench Reader will attach this at the top of first page of the judgment when it is put before the Judge for signature. IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 78 of 2007 (S/B) Dr. Rajeev Mohan Sharma s/o Dr. Mahesh Chandra Sharma, Presently posted as Veterinary Doctor/ Deputy Manger (Contract Basis) Uttaranchal Live Stock Development Board, Dehradun. ……… Petitioner Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary,’ Animal Husbandary Department, Dehradun. 2. Public Service Commission, Uttarakhand Ayog Bhawan, Gurukul Kangri Kankhal, Haridwar through its Secretary ……… Respondents …………. Sir Zaffar Ullah Siddique and Sri Dinesh Chauhan,, Advocates for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent no. 1. Sri Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Sri Piyus Garg, Advocate on behalf of Sri B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the intervener Tarun Kumar Garg. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) Sir Zaffar Ullah Siddique and Sri Dinesh Chauhan,, Advocates for the petitioner. Sri Subhash Upadhyaya, Brief Holder for respondent no. 1. Sri Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent no. 2. Sri Piyus Garg, Advocate on behalf of Sri B.K. Gupta, Advocate for the intervener Tarun Kumar Garg. They are heard. 2. Petitioner Dr. Rajeev Mohan Sharma has filed this writ petition for the following reliefs: “A) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the office memorandum dated 23.4.2007 issued by respondent no. 2 (Annexure 8) of this writ petition. B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Veterinary Doctor. C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 2 to permit to petitioner for interview in pursuance of advertisement bearing no. 01 / Service/2005-06 dated 26.2.2006 issued by respondent no. 2 D) Issue a suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. E) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 3. The petitioner, in substance, is seeking quashing of the Office Memorandum dated 23.04.2007 (Annexure 8) issued by respondent no. 2 Public Service Commission, whereby the petitioner’s candidature to the post of Veterinary Medical Officer, was rejected on the ground that the petitioner was not registered with Uttarakhand Veterinary Council. 4. Petitioner Dr. Rajeev Mohan Sharma applied for the post of Veterinary Medical Officer in response to the Advertisement dated 26.02.2006. As per the said Advertisement, the last date for submitting the application, was 27.03.2006. The petitioner’s application stands rejected vide Office Memorandum dated 23.04.2007 (Annexure 8). 5. The respondents have filed their separate counter affidavits. 6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 State of Uttarakhand, it has been stated that it was categorically stipulated in the Advertisement dated 26.02.2006 that the applicant to the post of Veterinary Medical Officer should be registered with Uttarakhand Veterinary Council and the petitioner, admittedly, was not registered with Uttarakhand Veterinary Council on the last date of submission of the application form i.e. 27.03.2006. The petitioner, therefore, according to this respondent was not eligible for appointment to the post of Veterinary Medical Officer. 7. The second respondent Public Service Commission, in its counter affidavit, has also the same stand that it was an essential requirement of the Advertisement dated 26.02.2006 that the applicant to the post of Veterinary Medical Officer, should be registered with Uttarakhand Veterinary Council and as the petitioner, admittedly, was not registered with the Uttarakhand Veterinary Council, he was not eligible for the post of Veterinary Medical Officer. 8. Petitioner Dr. Rajeev Mohan Sharma, admittedly, was not registered with Uttarakhand Veterinary Council either on the date submission of his application or on the last date of the submission of the application i.e. 27.03.2006. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for the registration with Uttarakhand Veterinary Council after 27.03.2006. In fact, the petitioner was registered with Uttarakhand Veterinary Council on 09.04.2007. 9. A bare perusal of the Advertisement dated 26.02.2006 makes it apparent that the registration with the Uttarakhand Veterinary Council was essential requirement for the eligibility of a candidate for appointment on the post of Veterinary Medical Officer. The petitioner’s reliance on the letter dated 14.09.2006(Annexure 2) is of no help as the said letter stands superseded by the letter dated 21.12.2006 (Annexure 3). 10. As the petitioner did not fulfil the essential requirement of being registered with Uttarakhand Veterinary Council on the last date of submission of the application prescribed in the Advertisement for appointment to the post of Veterinary Medical Officer, the reliefs sought by the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted. 11. The writ Petition, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C. J.) 07.08.2007 07.08.2007 A