AAKRITI BAHUGUNA Vs. UTTARAKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In all these three writ petitions, the petitioners claim to be eligible, and to be entitled, to appear in the "Main Examination"?, as they belong to Uttarakhand women category, and have secured more than the minimum cut-off marks prescribed for "Uttarakhand women"? i.e. of 135.25 marks; they should have been called to appear in the Main Examination; and their exclusion, from the process of selection by the State Public Service Commission is arbitrary and illegal.

(2.) While the marks secured by Mrs. Anurita Singh Gupta is 150.5, Ms. Semmy Tyagi secured 137.25 marks and Ms. Aakriti Bahuguna secured 136.75 marks.

(3.) Mr. V.K. Kohli, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Mr. Sudhir Kumar and Dr. Kartikey Hari Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, would contend that, for the fault of the Public Service Commission in not stipulating that reservation is available even within the unreserved category, the petitioners cannot be penalized; in their application forms, the petitioners have stated that their domicile is in Uttarakhand, and they belong to the unreserved category; the application form is misleading; while it discloses reservation in favour of the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes, it does not provide a separate column for horizontal reservation; the Public Service Commission is not justified in denying the petitioners the opportunity to appear in the main examination, though they secured more than the minimum cut-off marks, on hypertechnical grounds; and since the exercise undertaken by the Public Service Commission is to identify the most meritorious among the eligible candidates, and as the petitioners have, admittedly, secured more than the cut-off marks, they should have also been invited to appear in the main examination, along with the other eligible candidates.