PRATIBHA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Avidit Noliyal, learned Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent No.1 and Mr. Naman Kamboj, learned Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission/respondent No.2, and, with their consent, the Writ Petition is disposed of at the stage of admission.

(2.) An advertisement was issued on 19.09.2019 to fill up 38 posts of Assistant Prosecuting Officers. After a Preliminary Examination was conducted, the number of posts sought to the filled up were increased to 74. The respondents sought to fill up 74 posts even without issuing an advertisement, beyond the 38 posts advertised on 19.09.2019. The selection process was subjected to challenge in WPSB No.349 of 2011 and, by its order dated 10.06.2012, this Court directed the State Government to consider the recommendations made, or to be made, by the Commission in respect of the 38 advertised vacancies plus 25 percent thereof, meaning thereby 38 plus 9 posts. However, the State Government issued appointment orders only for 38 candidates.

(3.) The order of this Court, in WPSB No.349 of 2011 dated 10.05.2012, was subjected to challenge in Civil Appeal No. 8334 of 2013 and 8335 of 2013 and, by its order dated 05.10.2016, the Supreme Court upheld the order of this Court. The petitioner claims to have submitted a representation before the Principal Secretary to the Government seeking consideration of her candidature also, since she formed part of the wait-listed 09 candidates. The Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission supplied a list of 09 candidates to the State Government on 04.05.2017 and the petitioner's name is said to find place therein at serial No.4 (erroneously stated as Serial No.7 in the Writ Petition).