Suraj Adhikari v. State of Uttarakhand

SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar's order with Signatures COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS

WPSB/621/2024 Suraj Adhikari

--Petitioner Versus

State Of Uttarakhand & others

--Respondents Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

Mr. Vinay Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶2Mr. Sushil Vashisth, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 to 3.

¶3Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned Counsel for respondent no.4, appearing through V.C.

¶4Petitioner has challenged orders dated 26.04.2024 and 12.07.2024 passed by Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission'), whereby he was declared as ineligible for appointment to the post of Plant Protection Officer.

¶5Petitioner responded to advertisement issued by the Commission on 10.08.2021, whereby, applications were invited for Uttarakhand Combined State Civil/Upper Subordinate Services Examination, 2021. By that advertisement, 224 vacancies were advertised in 31 different posts in various departments of the State. Petitioner possesses M.Sc. Agriculture Science (Plant Pathology) qualification, and he contends that as per his academic qualification, he was eligible for appointment to the post of Mushroom Development Officer and Plant Protection Officer in Department of Horticulture.

¶6Petitioner participated in preliminary examination but he was declared ineligible for the post of Plant Protection Officer. However, petitioner was declared successful in preliminary examination for the post of Mushroom Development Officer.

¶7Learned Counsel for petitioner contends that since the Commission declared petitioner and various other candidates academically not qualified for the post of Plant Protection Officer, therefore, candidates including petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/B) No.219 of 2022 (Khushboo Kholia v. State and others). A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 07.09.2022, directed State Government to constitute an Expert Committee to examine the question of equivalence of academic qualifications.

¶8It is contended that the Equivalence Committee held petitioner to be educationally qualified for the post of Plant Protection Officer. It is further contended that despite report of Equivalence Committee holding petitioner to be eligible for the post of Plant Protection Officer, the Commission rejected petitioner's candidature vide order dated 26.04.2024 relying upon some letter issued by State Government on 13.05.2022. He submits that in that letter, State Government appears to have written that degree in Agriculture Science with specialization in Entomology alone may be considered for appointment as Plant Protection Officer. It is thus, contended that the Commission could not have relied

upon a letter issued by State Government when equivalence committee had submitted its report in terms of order passed by this Court on 28.10.2022.

¶9Learned Counsel for petitioner further submits that as per advertisement, essential qualification for the post of Plant Protection Officer is M.Sc. Agriculture, therefore, petitioner's candidature could not have been rejected merely by relying upon Government's letter dated

13.05.2022. He further submits that the said letter was issued by one Mr. Harminder Singh Baweja in the capacity of Director (Horticulture), and the same person was member of Equivalence Committee which held petitioner to be eligible for the post of Plant Protection Officer.

¶10We find some substance in the contention that the letter issued by State Government regarding educational qualification lost its relevance once Equivalence Committee submitted its report to the Commission. Impugned orders dated 26.04.2024 and 12.07.2024 are also silent regarding the report submitted by Equivalence Committee.

¶11We, therefore, allow the writ petition and set aside rejection orders dated 26.04.2024 and 12.07.2024 qua petitioner only, and direct the Secretary, Uttarakhand Public Service Commission to re-visit the question of petitioner's eligibility in light of report submitted by Equivalence Committee, and to pass order afresh within three weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶12It is further provided that if petitioner is found eligible and otherwise suitable for appointment, then the respondent-Commission shall make appropriate recommendation to the State Government, as per law.

¶13Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

13.08.2026 Rdang

RAJEEV DANG DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,

2.5.4.20=963da6fc6df8dbb91944etic58b9ed259ec3d 800f419a1199f15a3961c8ca2957, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=63F6E663A1DD44892EED6B81F043D7 78B37D74D2DB7200F2DABC7ABCC1CA358D, cn=RAJEEV DANG Date: 2026.08.21 19:35:59 +05'30'