Uttarakhand High Court
Amrish Kumar S/O Sri Rishi Pal Singh vs Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 4 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 UTR 16
Author: Lok Pal Singh
Bench: Lok Pal Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 900 of 2019 (S/S)
(under Article 226 of the Constitution of India)
Amrish Kumar S/o Sri Rishi Pal Singh
R/o Village Kumradi, Post Office Manglore,
Tehsil Roorkee,
District-Haridwar ..... Petitioner
Versus
Uttarakhand Public Service Commission
and others ..... Respondents
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. N.S. Pundir, Advocate for respondent no.1.
Mr. Narain Dutt, Brief Holder for the State/respondent nos.2 & 3.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Lok Pal Singh, J.
By means of present writ petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:
"(b) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus declaring the action of respondent no.1 in non-selecting the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement published on 05.04.2016 (Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition) for appointment to the post of Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer in the office of respondent no.1 and 2, despite scoring equal marks then the cut off marks fixed for unreserved category candidates, as arbitrary and illegal.
(b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to call for the record and for quashing the impugned notification dated 30.1.2019 (Annexure No. 6 to this writ petition) in so far as it relates to the petitioner as well as Private respondents, particularly respondent no.4.
(c) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to prepare the final select list afresh for the selection in question after correctly applying the principal of reservation and law on the subject.
(d) To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent 2 no.1 and 2 to appoint the petitioner on the post of Review Officer, pursuant to the selection in question from due date, if any.
2. Brief facts of the case are that on 05.04.2016 an advertisement was issued by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission i.e. respondent no.1 inviting applications for filling up the post of Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer in Uttarakhand Secretariat/Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner, who belongs to O.B.C. PH Category, submitted his application form. Subsequent thereto, the preliminary examination was held and he was declared successful. Thereafter, the petitioner participated in the mains examination petitioner. He scored a total of 188.75 marks. Grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent no.4, who is Unreserved PH Category and junior in age to the petitioner also getting same score i.e. 188.75 marks, has been selected for the post of Assistant Review Officer, whereas of the petitioner has not been considered for appointment on the aforesaid posts. Hence, this petition.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has scored 188.75 marks and the cut off marks for General PH candidates have been fixed as 188.75 marks in one leg category. He would further submit that the respondent no.4, namely, Mohd. Nazim, has also scored similar marks i.e. 188.75 marks. He would further submit that the date of birth of the petitioner is 05.9.1984"
whereas the date of birth of the respondent no. 4 is 3 17.7.1994, therefore, he is much younger to the petitioner in order of age. He would further submit that the Service Rules, Examination Rules of the Commission and other Rules governing the field, specifically provide that if two or more candidates scores same marks, in that case, their names in the merit list shall be arranged in order of their date of birth, meaning thereby, a person senior in age shall be placed higher in merit list. He would further submit that providing reservation to weaker sections of society is a social welfare legislation and the same cannot be used against them to their detrimental. He would further submit that it is settled position in law that if a candidate, belonging to any reserved category, scores more marks that the last selected candidate belonging to unreserved category, in that case, the said candidate entitled would be selected under the unreserved category, despite he/she being a reserved category candidate. In support of his contention he referred the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785. Relevant paragraphs are extracted below:
"6. Before examining whether the reservation provision relating to women, had been correctly applied, it will be advantageous to refer to the nature of horizontal reservation and the manner of its application. In Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217], the principle of horizontal reservation was explained thus (Pr.812) :
[all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [(under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped (under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations - what is 4 called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against the quota will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and should remain - the same."
7. A provision for women made under Article 15(3), in respect of employment, is a special reservation as contrasted from the social reservation under Article 16(4). The method of implementing special reservation, which is a horizontal reservation, cutting across vertical reservations, was explained by this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. [1995 (5) SCC 173] thus :
"The proper and correct course is to first fill up the Open Competition quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., S.C., S.T. and B.C; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied - in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalized horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen percent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) [Emphasis supplied]
8. We may also refer to two related aspects before considering the facts of this case. The first is about the description of horizontal reservation. For example, if there are 200 vacancies and 15% is the vertical reservation for SC and 30% is the horizontal reservation for women, the proper description of the number of posts reserved for SC, should be : "For SC : 30 posts, of which 9 posts are for women". We find that many a time this is wrongly described thus : "For SC : 21 posts for men and 9 posts for women, in all 30 posts". Obviously, there is, and there can be, no reservation category of 'male' or 'men'.
59. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are 'vertical reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such backward class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective backward class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under Open Competition category. [Vide - Indira Sawhney (Supra), R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995 (2) SCC 745), Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauvan (1995 (6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y. L. Yamul (1996 (3) SCC 253)]. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Castes-Women'. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example :
If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC women candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to 6 ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four women SC candidates. [But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess women candidate on the ground that 'SC-women' have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.]"
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also place reliance on Sections 3(1) and 3(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex- Servicemen) Act, 1993 to contend that a candidate, belonging to the reserved category, is entitled to compete for posts in the general category solely on the basis of his merit, as also for posts in the general category reserved in favour of other backward classes. Learned counsel would rely on Brijendra Deo Mishra vs. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad, (1996) 4 UPLBEC 2392, in support of his submission that reservation is in addition to merit; and the petitioner, despite being a member of the other backward class, was entitled to be considered on the basis of his merit for appointment to the post of Assistant Review Officer/Review Officer in the general category post earmarked for physical handicapped. He would further submit that the Government of Uttarakhand has taken a policy decision vide Government order dated 18.07.2001, which provides 14% reservation at the time of direct recruitment to public services to the persons belonging to O.B.C. community. He also further submit that out of the aforesaid advertised posts, total 05 posts were earmarked for physically handicapped persons. The petitioner possesses all eligibility conditions for appointment as Review Officer/Assistant Review Officer prescribed in the advertisement. He would further submit that the Service 7 Rules, Examination Rules of the Commission and other Rules governing the field, specifically provide that if two or more candidates scores same marks, in that case, their names in the merit list shall be arranged in order of their date of birth. Meaning thereby, a person senior in age shall be placed higher in merit list. In support of his contention he referred point no. 6.6 of Examination Procedure Rules, 2012 of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. Same are extracted below:
6.6 iz oh.krkØe@ Js 'BrkØe%& lh/khHkrhZ¼fyf[kr ,oalk{kkRdkj½ ,oa¼ds oy fyf[kr ijh{kkek/;e½ rFkklh/khHkrhZds oy lk{kkRdkj ek/;e½dsva fre p;u ifj.kke rS ;kj djrsle;
;fn nks ;k vf/kd vH;FkhZ cjkcj&cjkcj va d iz kIr djrs gS a rks mUgs a iz oh.krk@ ;ks X;rkØe es aj[kusdsfy, fuEuor~of.kZ r iz fØ;kviuk;htk,xh%& ¼1½ loZ iz Fke lh/kh HkrhZ ¼fyf[kr ,oa lk{kkRdkj@ ds oy fyf[kr ijh{kk ek/;e½ rFkk lh/kh HkrhZ¼ds oy lk{kkRdkj ek/;e½ dsva fre p;u ifj.kke es a lEcfU/kr ls okfu;ekoyhes aHkrhZdhiz fØ;kgs rqtksHkh iz kfo/kku of.kZ r gS a ]mlds vuq lkj p;u ifj.kke rS ;kj fd;ktk,xkA ¼2½ tgk¡ls ok fu;ekoyh es aHkrhZdh iz fØ;k dk Li'V mYys [k u gks ]ogk¡ fuEuor~iz fØ;kdsvuq lkj p;u ifj.kke rS ;kj fd;ktk,xk%& ¼A½ lh/khHkrhZ¼fyf[kr ifj{kk,oalk{kkRdkj½ es anks uks adsva d tks M+ usij ;fn nks;kvf/kd vH;FkhZcjkcj va d iz kIr djrsgS arksØe"k%& ¼i½ fyf[kr ijh{kk es avf/kd iz kIrka d ks aokysvH;FkhZdksiz oh.krkØe es a Åij j[kktk,xk];fn fyf[kr ifj{kkes aHkhcjkcj va d gks arks & ¼ii½ T;s 'B vk;qokysvH;FkhZdksiz oh.krkØe es aÅij j[kk tk,xk];fn vk;qHkhcjkcj gks arks & ¼iii½ vk;qcjkcj gks usij mudsuke o.kZ ekyk ¼va xz s t h½ dsØe es aigys vkusokysvH;FkhZdksÅij j[kktk,xkA
6. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.1 stating therein that there was 01 post of Review Officer available in the administration of Secretariat under 8 the horizontal reservation (Physically Handicapped in O.L. one leg affected) in General Category and against the said category the respondent no.4 was selected in accordance with law. It is also stated that as per Section 3(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependent of Freedom Fighters and Ex Service Men) Act, 1993", adopted by the State of Uttarakhand vide notification dated 07.11.2002, if a person belongs to backward class category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustment. He also submits that as per the Government Order dated 18.07.2001, a person would be entitled for horizontal reservation in a category against which he/she belong originally. It is further stated that the petitioners belongs to O.B.C. category and in the OBC category there was only 01 post for sub category PH in Partial Blind (PB) and petitioner does not belong to said sub category. It is further stated petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category and in that category no post is reserved for PH (One leg)
7. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of respondent no.4 stating therein that the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria is not applicable in the present case for the reason that the quota of OBC is already fulfilled in the PH category. It is further stated that the cut off marks for OBC candidates in PH category (Partially Blind Sub category) is 171.00 marks whereas for unreserved category the same is 188.75 marks, hence, it cannot be said that the higher cut-off marks have been fixed for unreserved category instead of reserved category. It is further stated that the respondent no.4 has also cleared the preferential qualification of English typing whereas the petitioner has 9 not possessed any preferential qualification due to which he was selected in the said examination.
8. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed stating therein that the respondent no.4 has made a false statement that the respondent no.4 also clear the English typing, which was a preferential qualification. It is stated that the respondent no.4 appeared in the said English typing examination and qualifying criteria was 9000 key depression per hour but the respondent no.4 whose roll was 816593, could typed only 1060 key depression per hour out of which 20 mistakes were there and the net key depression by him was 1040 and he was declared failed after assessing his score as 6240 key depression per hours which was far away from the minimum prescribed i.e. 9000 key depression.
9. The law laid down by the Supreme Court, in Rajesh Kumar Daria, is that reservation is in addition to merit, and members of the reserved category (i.e. the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes), are entitled to compete, on their own merit, for being appointed to posts in the general category.
10. It is settled position in law that every eligible candidate irrespective of his social status, (whether he belongs to the Other Backward Classesss, the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes), is entitled to be considered, for appointment to posts under the general category, solely on the basis of his/her merit. In the case of vertical reservation, it is only after candidates are selected in the general category, would candidates lower in merit be considered for appointment to posts reserved in 10 favour of the categories to which they belong. For instance, if a Scheduled Caste candidate secures the first rank in a competitive examination, he would be treated as a general category candidate; and a member of the Scheduled Caste, lower in merit, would be appointed against the quota earmarked for the Scheduled Castes. Horizontal reservation cuts across vertical reservation, and can be provided in each category. Posts can be horizontally reserved in favour of women, ex-servicemen, physically handicapped etc. in each of the categories i.e. general category, the OBC category, the SC category and the ST category. It is settled preposition in law that Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are 'vertical reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such backward class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the respective backward class.
11. The Division Bench of this Court in which I was also a member has also decided the similar controversy in writ petition no. 392 of 2017 (S/B) "Sudhir Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others". Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:
9. The law declared by the Supreme Court, in Rajesh Kumar Daria, is that reservation is in addition to merit, and members of the reserved category (i.e. the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes), are entitled to compete, on their own 11 merit, for being appointed to posts in the general category. Applying the law laid down by the Supreme Court, in Rajesh Kumar Daria, to the facts of the present case would require the Public Service Commission to fill up general category posts, in the first instance, solely on the basis of inter-se merit of the candidates. Such general category posts would also include posts horizontally reserved under the said category i.e. posts earmarked for ex-servicemen, under the general category, must also be filled up with the most meritorious ex-serviceman, irrespective of whether or not he belongs to a reserved category (the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes). The mere fact that posts, horizontally earmarked in favour of ex-servicemen, were not reserved in favour of the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, could not have resulted in a more meritorious Scheduled Caste candidate, who is also an ex-serviceman, being deprived of selection, under the ex-servicemen quota in the general category, strictly on the basis of his merit. As noted hereinabove, the petitioner secured more marks than the selected candidate (i.e. the 4th respondent), who secured far lesser marks than the petitioner did.
10. The submission of Mr. B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, that horizontal reservation is a compartmentalized reservation provided under each category and is, therefore, not available to those who do not fall within the said category, ignores the fact that posts, horizontally earmarked in favour of ex-servicemen under the general category, should be filled up considering the marks secured by all ex- servicemen on the basis of their merit, including ex-servicemen belonging to the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. This contention of compartmentalization would not justify the Public Service Commission denying a more meritorious ex-serviceman of being appointed to the post, earmarked for ex- servicemen in the general category, merely because he is an ex- servicemen belonging to the Scheduled Castes category.
11. The submission of Mr. B.D. Kandpal, that if this distinction between horizontal reservation and vertical reservation is not drawn then the reservation percentage would exceed 50%, is only to be noted to be rejected. Reservation, as noted hereinabove, is in addition to merit; and candidates who are selected on their own merit, irrespective of whether or not they belong to the reserved category, cannot be included in calculating the maximum 50% vertical reservation which can be provided in favour of the reserved categories such as the Other Backward Classes, the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. The very same contention, as is now urged before us, was 12 also urged in Brijendra Deo Mishra vs. Public Service Commission, U.P. Allahabad¸ and a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court observed thus:- ".........The main question that falls for decision is whether quotas for D.F.F., physically handicapped and ex- servicemen are to be calculated as a percentage of total vacancies in a particular service or as a percentage of the vacancies in the respective category, (i.e. Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes or General) to which the candidate belongs. Sub-section (I) of Section 3 of 1993 Act provides reservation for the physically handicapped, D.F.F. and Ex-servicemen at 5% of the vacancies, in other words, as a percentage of the total vacancies. After the persons are selected against the vacancies reserved under Sub-section (1) of Section 3, they are under Sub- section (3) of Section 3 to be placed in appropriate category to which they belong. For example, if a selected person belongs to Scheduled Caste category, he is to be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments. Similarly, if he belongs to open competition category, he is to be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. A combined reading of Sub-sections (1) and (3) makes it clear that the quotas of the vacancies for physically handicapped, D.F.F. and ex- servicemen are to be calculated as a percentage of total number of vacancies and it is after the persons are selected against the vacancies reserved under Sub-section (1), they have to be placed in the respective caste category by making necessary adjustments.
Our interpretation is in accordance with para 95 of the Supreme Court decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India AIR 1993 SC 477. which reads as under:
95. We are also of the opinion that this rule of 50% applies only to reservations in favour of backward classes made under Article 16(4). A little clarification is in order at this Juncture: all reservations are not:
of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes Scheduled Tribes and other Backward Classes (under Article 16(4) may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped (under Clause (1) of Article 16) can be referred to as horizontal reservations.
Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations- what is called inter-locking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to Clause (1) of Article 13
16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category if he belongs to S.C. category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, If he belongs to open competition (O.C.) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations In favour of backward class of citizens remains and should remain the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure.
It is, however, made clear that the rule of 50% shall be applicable only to reservations proper; they shall not be- indeed cannot be applicable to exemptions, concessions or relaxations, if any, provided to 'Backward Class of Citizens' under Article 16(4). We see no Justification for the view expressed by the Commission that if quota of reserved vacancies stipulated in Section 3(1) and the notification issued under Section 3(2) of 1993 Act is calculated as a percentage of the total number of vacancies and if after the persons selected against the vacancies reserved under Sub-section (1) are placed In the appropriate categories to which they belong, reservation will exceed 50% of the total vacancies. Our view also finds support from the decision of a Division Bench of this Court rendered on 8.7.1996 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12916 of 1996, Sheo Shanker Singh v. Public Service Commission. U.P., where three vacancies were reserved for ex-servicemen, but they were divided in such manner that one vacancy was for general ex- servicemen, another for scheduled caste ex-servicemen and the remaining one was for other Backward Class Ex- servicemen. It was held that dividing "vacancies reserved for ex-servicemen and allocating them to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Backward Classes and General Candidates is without jurisdiction. All Ex-Servicemen, who applied against their reserved quota have to be treated as persons belonging to the one and the same class and all of them are to be considered against all the vacancies reserved for them strictly on the basis of the merit irrespective of the caste/class to which they belong......" (emphasis supplied).
12. Viewed from any angle, we are satisfied that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission has erred in not appointing the petitioner in the post earmarked for ex- servicemen under the general category, though he secured more marks than the fourth respondent, solely on the ground that he belonged to the Scheduled Castes category. The selection of the fourth respondent is set- aside. The Public Service Commission shall, forthwith, forward the petitioner's name to the Government for necessary orders to be issued appointing him in the post 14 of Deputy Collector under the quota of ex-servicemen earmarked under the general category.
13. The writ petition is allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs."
12. Admittedly, the petitioner belongs to O.B.C. (PH) category whereof the respondent no.4 belongs to General (PH) category. It is also admitted that the petitioner as well as respondent no.4 scored equal marks i.e. 188.75. It is also undisputed that as per the date of birth, the petitioner is senior to the respondent no.4 and the Rule 6.6 of Examination Procedure Rules, 2012 of Uttarakhand Public Service Commission specifies that if two or more candidates scores same marks, in that case, the candidate who is senior in the age s hall be given preference in appointment. Despite this, the respondent no.1 recommended the name of respondent no.4 for appointment on the post of Review Officer, which is violative of ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in judgment (supra) as well as the judgment of Division Bench of this Court. Consequently, the recommendation made by respondent no.1 in favour of respondent no.4-Mohd. Nazim (Roll No. 816593) is liable to be quashed qua respondent no.4.
13. A Perusal of the order sheet would reveal that this Court vide order dated 16.04.2019 had directed the respondent Commission to reserve one post of Assistant Review Officer/Review Officer physical handicapped category till the next date of listing, which order is in existence till date.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned notification dated 30.01.2019 is hereby quashed 15 qua the respondent no.4. Mandamus is hereby issued to respondent no.1 to recommend the name of petitioner for appointment on the post of Assistant Review Officer/ Review Officer in Uttarakhand Secretariat/Uttarakhand Public Service Commission within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
15. No order as to costs.
(Lok Pal Singh, J.) Mamta Dated : 04.01.2021 16