POORNIMA SHARMA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Counsel on either side are in agreement that, for the purpose of disposal of both these writ petitions, it would suffice if the facts in WPSB No. 356 of 2018 are noted.

(2.) Wpsb No. 356 of 2018 was filed seeking a writ of mandamus to declare the inaction of the first respondent, in offering appointment to the petitioners in the posts of Assistant Prosecution Officers, as arbitrary and illegal; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the first respondent to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners in the posts of Assistant Prosecution Officers.

(3.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the fourth respondent issued an advertisement on 19.9.2009 inviting applications for 38 vacancies in the post of Assistant Prosecuting Officers in the Home Department of the State of Uttarakhand; out of these 38 vacancies, 11 were reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, 6 in favour of the Other Backward Classes, and the remaining posts were unreserved. The petitioner applied under the general category, and participated in the selection process where she was declared successful. On having been declared successful in the preliminary examination held on 31.10.2010, she appeared in the main examination held on 4th and 5th June, 2011 and, on being declared successful in the main examination, she was called for an interview, which was held between 13th to 17th February, 2012. As against the 38 vacancies advertised, the Public Service Commission issued a notification on 18.2.2012 declaring the final result whereby 71 candidates were declared successful in the said examination.