IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.338 of 2008 (S/S) Prakash Chandra & another ……Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ....Respondents Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. H.M. Raturi, Standing Counsel for respondents. Dated: 16.06.2009 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for following reliefs:- I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to appoint each of the petitioner on the post of Junior Assistant for which they have been selected as per the result declared by the Press Note dated 20.03.2008. II. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. III. Award the costs of the petition to the petitioners. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 29.06.2006 sixteen posts of Junior Assistant were advertised in Revenue and Supply Department of District Champawat by District Magistrate, Champawat. In pursuance of the advertisement, the petitioners appeared in written examination held on 17.12.2006. On 03.02.2008 result of written examination was published in Hindi Dainik “Amar Ujala” in which the petitioners were declared successful. All the successful candidates including the petitioners were directed to remain present in the office of District Magistrate, Champawat on 08.03.2008 at 10:30 a.m. for typing test. The petitioners appeared in typing test on 08.03.2008 conducted by the office of District Magistrate, Champawat. Thereafter, on 20.03.2008 a press note was issued by the District Magistrate, Champawat wherein three candidates bearing Roll Numbers 1100501, 1100732 and 1100670 were declared successful. The roll numbers of the petitioners were included in the list of successful candidates. By this press note other candidates, who were found unsuccessful in the typing test, were given last opportunity to appear in computer typing test on 24.04.2008. In this Computer Typing Test 33 candidates were declared successful. On 29.04.2008 a list of 17 successful candidates were published in Amar Ujala in which petitioners’ names were not included. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representation before the District Magistrate for giving them appointment in view of their selection as notified in the press note dated 20.03.2008 but the petitioners were not given appointment. Hence, this writ petition was filed. 4. The main argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that once they were declared successful in the written examination as well as in manual typing test and placed on the merit list, the petitioners are entitled for appointment on the post of Junior Assistant. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in press note dated 20.03.2008 the petitioners were declared successful for the post of Junior Assistant. By this press note other unsuccessful candidates were asked to appear in the computer typing test on 24/25.04.2008 but petitioners were not asked by that press note to appear again in the typing test. The petitioners were finally selected for the post of Junior Assistant as three candidates were declared successful against the 16 vacancies. According to learned counsel for the petitioners action of the respondents by not providing appointment to the petitioners on the post of Junior Assistant is arbitrary and illegal and violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. 5. The respondent no.2 filed his counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit the respondents submitted that post of Junior Assistant is filled as per Uttaranchal Procedure for Direct Recruitment for Group-C posts (outside the purview of Uttaranchal Public Service Commission) Rules, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) as modified in the year 2007. The process for direct recruitment is specified in Rule 5 which reveals that selection list is to be prepared. In the present case final select list was prepared after calculating the marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination as well as in the intermediate examination as per rules. In the manual typing test, out of 68 candidates only 3 candidates were declared successful. Thereafter in computer typing test 33 other persons were also declared successful. In para 10 of the counter affidavit, respondent no.2 submitted that final select list was prepared after calculating marks obtained by the candidates in the written examination and in the Intermediate examination as per rules. In all 33 candidates including the petitioners were considered for selection for the post of Junior Assistant. The select list was prepared as per the Rules after applying the reservation quota. But in the select list the petitioners were low in merit and therefore, they were not declared successful. 6. The main argument of the Standing Counsel is that since the petitioners were low in merit they were not declared successful and therefore they cannot be offered appointment on the post of Junior Assistant. 7. The procedure for selection given in the Rules was followed by respondent no.2. But the question for determination is whether the petitioner stood selected in view of press note dated 20.03.2008 or whether the selection process for three posts for which petitioners were declared successful on 20.03.2008 was also completed on 29.04.2008 when another press note was issued selecting 17 candidates as Junior Assistant. Admittedly written test was held on 17.12.2006 and result of written test was published on 03.02.2008 in which all successful candidates were asked to appear in typing test. All candidates appeared in typing test and on 20.03.2008 a press note was issued by District Magistrate, Champawat wherein three candidates including the petitioners were declared successful. In this regard press note dated 20.03.2008 is quoted below:- **lewg x ds inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ dh izfdz;k ds vUrxZr tuin pEikor esa djk;h x;h eSuqvy Vad.k ijh{kk ds mijkUr vuqdzekad 1100501] 1100732 rFkk 1100670 dks lQy ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k gSA ;g Hkh voxr djkuk gS fd iwoZ esa Vad.k ijh{kk gsrq cqyk;s x;s fuEu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dEI;wVj dk vafre fodYi dk volj nsrs gq, fuEu frfFk;ksa esa vafdr fd, x, vuqdzekadksa dks le; izkr% 11%00 cts ls ftyk dk;kZy; pEikor esa dEI;wVj Vad.k ijh{kk gsrq vkeaf=r fd;k tkrk gSA bl gsrq vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dksbZ ;k=k HkRrk@vU; HkRrk ughs fn;k tk;sxkA** From the reading of press note dated 20.03.2008 it is clear that vide notice dated 20.03.2008 three candidates, including the petitioners, were declared successful for the post of Junior Assistant. Other candidates, who were found unsuccessful in typing test, were given another opportunity to appear in computer and typing test on 24.04.2008 and 25.04.2008. These candidates though appeared with the petitioners in typing test on 08.03.2008 but they were not found successful in the typing test. Thus, only 3 candidates bearing Roll Numbers 1100501, 1100732 and 1100670, including the petitioners, were declared successful in the typing test held on 08.03.2008. Since, these three candidates including the petitioners were not asked to appear in the computer typing test again, the intention of the respondents at that time was clear about the selection of three candidates. Respondent no.2 did not cancel the typing test held on 08.03.2008 and did not ask for fresh typing/computer test. Thus on 20.03.2008 three candidates including the petitioner were successful candidates and they should have been offered appointment on the post of Junior Assistant as per the Rules. The respondent no.2 erred in not providing the appointment to the petitioners on the post of Junior Assistant in pursuance of press note dated 20.03.2008 as petitioners were found successful in written test as well as in typing test. He further erred in providing appointment to those candidates only who were found unsuccessful in the result dated 08.03.2008. In any case those unsuccessful candidates could not be offered appointment prior to the petitioners. The petitioners cannot be equated with those candidates who were declared unsuccessful in the typing test held on 08.03.2008. In present case, the selection process for three posts was completed on 20.03.2008 when result of typing test was declared. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Junior Assistant in pursuance of advertisement dated 29th June, 2006 forthwith. 9. No order as to costs. (V.K.Bist, J.) 16.06.2009 Arti