WPSB/583/2022 of SAMIKSHA UNIYAL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND on 6 August 2026

UKHC010145502022

2026:UHC:6958-DB

SL.

No

.

Date

Office Notes,

reports, orders

or proceedings

or directions and

Registrar’s order

with Signatures

COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

WPSB/583/2022

Samiksha Uniyal

--Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand & another --Respondents Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.

There is no representation for the petitioner.

2.

Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

3.

Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel holding brief of Ms.

Menka Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent no.2- Commission.

4.

From perusal of the writ petition, it is revealed that petitioner responded to an advertisement issued by respondent no.2. Her grievance is that in that advertisement issued on 10.08.2021, one vacancy each was reserved on the post of (i) Block Development Officer, (ii) Deputy Education Officer, and (iii) Finance Officer, for dependents of Freedom Fighters. However, a Corrigendum was thereafter issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission on 07.12.2021, whereby candidates were informed that none of the vacancies in the aforesaid posts is reserved for ‘Dependants of Freedom Fighters’. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner filed this writ petition in 2022 seeking the following relief:- “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the corrigendum dated 07.12.2021 to the extent of removing the post which was kept for the dependent of freedom fighter and extend the benefits of the dependent of freedom fighter to the petitioner as the same be made applicable in the present selection pursuant to the advertisement no.A-1/E-1/PCS-2021/2021-22

dated

10.08.2021 (annexure no.2 to the writ petition) issued by respondent no.2.”

5.

Learned counsel appearing for Commission submits that Corrigendum dated 07.12.2021 was issued in terms of UKHC010145502022

2026:UHC:6958-DB

revised

requisition

received

from

the

Department

of

Personnel, Government of Uttarakhand.

6.

Learned State Counsel submits that, as per earlier policy, depending upon number of vacancies, if share of reserved category was 0.5 or more, then one vacancy was to be reserved for that reserved category. However, State Government took a policy decision, which was notified by Government Order dated 22.05.2020, and as per that government order, merely because share of vacancy available to a reserved category is more than 0.5 would not entitle that reserved category to one vacancy.

7.

Since

petitioner

has

not

challenged

the

revised

requisition

or

Government