LAWS(UTN)-2005-10-34

MAMTA BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL AND ORS.

Decided On October 26, 2005
MAMTA BISHT Appellant
V/S
State of Uttaranchal And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means this petition, the Petitioner seeks writ of mandamus or order setting aside the result dated 31-7-2003 of Uttaranchal Judicial Service, Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2002 and also seeks writ of direction to summon and declare the merit list and marks of the Main Examination/Interview of the candidates selected in the main examination before the Court so as to make the process of selection transparent.

(2.) The Petitioner filed the writ petition framing the following questions of law:

(3.) Brief facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the State of Uttaranchal, vide notification No. 2 (Exam.) 2002-03 dated 07-06-2002 advertised 35 posts for Uttaranchal Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination, 2002. The Petitioner is a domicile of Uttaranchal. She applied in accordance to the rules pursuant to the aforesaid advertisement. The Petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination held by the Respondent No. 3 and was declared successful on 13-2-2003 being roll number 02885 in Uttaranchal Mahila Category. The Petitioner further appeared in the main examination and in the same also declared successful in the result published on 22-6-2003. Thereafter she appeared for the interview on 23-7-2003 but in the final result which was declared on 31-7-2003 the name of the Petitioner was not amongst the selected candidates of Uttaranchal Mahila Category. The number of candidates selected was 42 as against 35 which was initially advertised. It is alleged by the Petitioner that it is surprising that most of the candidates belongs to the Scheduled Caste. Scheduled Tribes and OBC Category do not belong to Uttaranchal and have been appointed in-stead of domiciles of Uttaranchal. The Petitioner also alleged that the entire process of selection has been made by Respondent No. 3 without following the due process of law and its own guidelines and notification for reservation dated 18-7-2001. Out of total 42 candidates so selected, only 23 candidates are in general cadre, whereas 19 candidates have been selected in the reserved category, which shows that the entire process was malafide and against the settled principles of law.