LAWS(UTN)-2022-8-71

AJAY DUNGRAKOTI Vs. HONBLE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

Decided On August 22, 2022
Ajay Dungrakoti Appellant
V/S
Honble High Court Of Uttarakhand Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition to assail the decision taken by the High Court of Uttrakhand-respondent no. 1 as communicated by the communication dtd. 30/12/2020 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for recommending his name to the State Government for appointment in Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services-2019, against the vacant post in the General Category. The petitioner seeks a mandamus to the High Court of Uttarakhand to consider his candidature and recommend his name to the State Government for appointment in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services-2019 against the vacant posts in the General Category.

(2.) On 10/4/2019, the High Court of Uttarakhand issued a notification for filling up six vacant posts of Additional District and Sessions Judges by direct recruitment in the Uttarakhand Higher Judicial Services. Of the six posts, one was an unreserved-general category post. Against the said post, no horizontal reservation for woman was provided. There were three posts reserved for Scheduled Castes and two for the Economically Weaker Ss. . One post in each of these categories was reserved horizontally reserved for women candidates. We are concerned with the one post falling in the general category for which no horizontal reservation for women was prescribed.

(3.) The petitioner offered his candidates against the general category post. On the basis of written examination held on 20th and 21/7/2019, the High Court circulated a list of successful candidates, who were called for viva-voce. Amongst the general category candidates, one Rahul Singh having Roll No. 1022 and the petitioner Ajay Dungrakoti having Roll No. 1092, were called for viva-voce by the High Court. The result of the examination, namely, the written and the viva-voce was declared by the High Court, wherein Rahul Singh secured 247.16 marks and the petitioner secured 230 marks. They were at serial nos. 1 and 2 in the merit list and they both belonged to the general category.