Uttarakhand High Court
Krishan Pal And Others ....... ... vs Government Of Uttarakhand on 22 September, 2021
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1180 of 2021
Krishan Pal and Others ....... Petitioners
Vs.
Government of Uttarakhand
and Others ......Respondents
Present:
Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. Narayan Dutt, Brief Holder for the State.
Mr. Ramji Srivastava, Advocate for the caveator.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) Responding to an advertisement issued by the respondent no. 3 Uttarakhand Medical Services Selection Board ('the Board') dated 13.05.2021, the petitioners appeared in an examination for recruitment to the post of X-ray technicians on 18.06.2021. The merit list was published on 04.08.2021. It is the case of the petitioners that the examination was conducted in total contravention of Rule 4 of the Uttarakhand (Uttar Pradesh) X-Ray Technician Service Rules 1986 Amendment Rules, 2008 ('the rules'). The rules provide for written examination of one paper of 100 marks alone, whereas, as per the advertisement dated 13.05.2021, the written examination was to be held of two papers of 100 marks each. On this ground alone, petitioners seek quashing of the advertisement, the result with further related directions.
2
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.3 the Board published the advertisement dated 13.05.2021 in contravention to the provisions of the rules because as per the rules, only one paper of 100 mark was to be held in the written examination, whereas the written examinations was held on two papers of each 100 marks. Hence, the entire procedure is vitiated.
4. On behalf of the respondent no.3, learned counsel would submit that in fact, the rules were subsequently amended. It is also the case of learned counsel for respondent no.3 that the rules applicable for X-Ray Technicians are the Uttarakhand X-Ray Technician Service Niyamavali Rules, the 2015 (2015 rules) which were amended on 16.09.2020, particularly, rule 15(3) has been amended. Now, instead of one paper of 100 marks, two papers of each 100 marks is to be conducted. Therefore, it is submitted that nothing against rule was done in the recruitment process. In addition to it, learned counsel for respondent no.3 also submits that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioners have already appeared in the examination and they have been not successful.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has placed before the Court the 2015 Rules, as amended and notified on 16.09.2020. A Perusal of the rules reveals that, in fact, prior to 3 amendment, which was incorporated on 16.09.2020, the 2015 Rules provided for two papers of 100 marks each in the written examination. It is also true that in the rules, which have been referred to in the writ petition, initially in the year 2008, it was provided that only one paper of 100 marks would be taken in written examination. The rules, as quoted by the petitioner are of 2008 and what is cited before this Court on behalf of respondent no.3 are 2015 Rules. The 2015 rules provide for two papers in the written examination of 100 marks each and subsequently, in the year 2020, it was maintained.
6. In view of it, there appears to be no illegality in the advertisement by providing the procedure for written examination because apparently it is in accordance with the 2015 Rules. Therefore, there is no merit in the instant petition and the writ petition is liable to dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
7. The writ petition is dismissed in limini.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 22.09.2021 Ujjwal