NIRMAL SINGH Vs. HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed seeking a writ of certiorari to call for the records of the selection of the petitioner as well as the sixth respondent, including the final result dtd. 28/2/2018, and to quash the said result; a writ of mandamus commanding the fourth respondent to include the name of the petitioner, in the OBC category, in the Uttarakhand Judicial Services Examination, 2016; and a writ of mandamus commanding the seventh respondent-CBI to investigate the matter, and take appropriate action against the persons responsible, including officials of the fourth respondent.

(2.) Facts, to the extent necessary, are that the petitioner passed his L.L.B. examination in the year 2008 from H.N.B. Garhwal University, and holds a Masters Degree in Law. An advertisement was issued by the fourth respondent-Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to fill up eight vacant posts of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the Uttarakhand Judicial Services on 15/3/2017. Of these eight vacant posts, two were reserved for the OBCs', to which category the petitioner belongs. The petitioner submitted his application, pursuant to the said advertisement dtd. 15/3/2017, for being considered for selection and appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). The petitioner appeared in the preliminary examination but was declared unsuccessful in the results declared on 28/8/2017. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/B) No. 404 of 2017 and an interim order was passed therein, by a Division Bench of this Court on 18/9/2017, permitting the petitioner to participate provisionally in the main examination. The petitioner appeared in the main examination, which was conducted by the fourth respondent, from 30/10/2017 to 2/11/2017 and secured 421 marks out of 850, and 70 marks out of 100 in the subject of computers.

(3.) The petitioner alleges that, due to the connivance between respondents 4 to 6, he was awarded only 31 marks out of 100 in the interview; respondents 5 and 6 were near relatives; and, just to give undue benefit to the sixth respondent, 60 marks were awarded to him despite the fact that he had secured only 400 marks out of 850 in the written examination, and had secured only 51 marks out of 100 in the subject of computers.