GOPI CHAND Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this petition is made to the provisional recommendation list dtd. 9/2/2025 ("provisional recommendation list") made by the respondent no. 5, the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission ("the Commission"). The petitioners seek revision of the provisional recommendation list in accordance with Rule 6 and Rule 15(6) of the Uttarakhand Subordinate Education (Trained Graduate Grade) Service Rules, 2014 ("the 2014 Rules") as well as according to sub-sec. (6) of Sec. 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 ("the 1994 Act").

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(3.) Briefly stated, the petitioners case is as follows. The Commission issued an advertisement on 14/3/2024 inviting applications from eligible candidates for selection on 1544 vacancies of Assistant Teacher L.T. Grade in different subjects in the Department of Secondary Education, Government of Uttarakhand. All the petitioners belong to the reserve category of either Scheduled Caste or Other Backward Class. They participated in the selection process and appeared in the written examination that was held on 18/8/2024. The Commission, on 10/1/2025, published a list of candidates for document verification/scrutiny of the documents, which was to be held between 14/1/2025 and 20/1/2025. The petitioners name also appeared in that list. All the petitioners participated in the document verification. Thereafter, the provisional recommendation list was published by the Commission on 9/2/2025. It is the grievance of the petitioners that against 1544 vacancies, the provisional recommendation list was issued in respect of 1300 vacancies only, which is in violation of Rule 15(6) of the 2014 Rules, which requires the selecting body to prepare a select list, which shall include names, 25% more than the existing vacancies. It requires preparing one single list. It also violates the provisions of the 1994 Act. The challenge to the provisional recommendation list is also made on the ground that the reserved category candidates, who secured more marks than the last selected candidates in the open category, have to be shifted and counted against the vacancies of the open category.