ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to include the name of the petitioner in the select list, of the selection process held by respondent No.2, for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurved) pursuant to advertisement No.3/Seva-1/2020-11 as against horizontal reservation of freedom fighter available for the general category candidates.

(2.) During the pendency of this writ petition, respondent Nos.3 to 5 were appointed under the dependents of Uttarakhand Freedom Fighters quota. While respondent Nos.3 and 4 joined the post of Medical Officer (Ayurved), the fifth respondent did not. She also remained ex-parte, despite service of notice in the writ petition on her. Consequent thereto, the petitioner had the prayer in the writ petition amended. He sought a writ of certiorari to quash the appointment order dated 26.07.2013, issued by the respondents in so far as it related to respondent Nos.3 and 4 whose name appeared in the select list; and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to grant appointment to the petitioner in the post of Medical Officer (Ayurved) under the Freedom Fighter category, as against the post held by the third respondent, after setting aside his appointment.

(3.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner applied for the post of Medical Officer (Ayurved) pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 25.08.2010. Out of a total numbers of 564 posts of Medical Officers (Ayurved) for which applications were invited, 06 posts were horizontally reserved for dependents of Freedom Fighters in the General category. The petitioner sought the benefit of horizontal reservation under the dependents of Freedom Fighters category. He was, however, informed, by letter dated 22.11.2012, that the certificate produced by him was not issued by the competent authority in the State of Uttarakhand, but was issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Muzaffarnagar; and, since reservation could be given only residents of Uttarakhand, the certificate should also have been issued by the competent authority in Uttarakhand. While this letter of the Public Service Commission was not subjected to challenge in the present writ petition, the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner, by Mr. Aditya Singh, learned Counsel appearing on his behalf, is that neither the applicable statutory provisions nor the relevant Government Orders expressly stipulate.