Uttarakhand High Court
WPSB/429/2026 of VIJAYPAL SINGH BHANDARI Vs HEMWATI NANDAN BAHUGUNA GARHWAL UNIVERSITY on 9 July 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY Writ Petition (S/B) No.429 of 2026 9th July, 2026 Vijaypal Singh Bhandari -----Petitioner Versus Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Writ Petition (S/B) No.429 of 2026
9th July, 2026
Vijaypal Singh Bhandari
-----Petitioner
Versus
Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University and Others
----Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Shobhit Saharia and Mr. Pankaj Tangwan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Dr. K.H. Gupta and Ms. Irum Zeba, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3.
----------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT : (per Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta C. J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview for the post of Deputy Registrar.
II. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the action of the respondents rejecting the petitioner's candidature.
III. Issue a writ of Certiorari calling for the entire records of the Screening Committee, including the eligibility evaluation sheets, equivalence determination, marks, and the proceedings by which the service rendered as a Bank Probationary Officer was treated as equivalent for the purpose of shortlisting candidates for the post of Deputy Registrar.
IV. Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem, fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.”
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner presently holds the post of Assistant Registrar in Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University. He was appointed on the said post on 08.03.2021, which is a Level-10 post.
4. The University has issued a recruitment notification dated 10.07.2025 in pursuance of which it seeks to fill up three posts (Leave Vacancy) of Deputy Registrar and one more post of Deputy Registrar on Deputation basis. The experience for the aforesaid posts are as follows: Deputy Registrar 03 Posts (Leave Vacancy) Five years’ of administrative experience as Assistant Registrar or in an equivalent post
Deputy Registrar 01 Post (Deputation) i) holding analogous post or
ii) with three years regular service in Level-11 or
iii) with eight years regular service in Level-10
5. The petitioner has submitted application for recruitment against the post of Deputy Registrar (Deputation) wherein, as noted above, the applicant should possess 8 years regular service in Level-10, which is not fulfilled by the petitioner. Thus, no case is made out to issue any mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to participate in the interview for the said post. The action of the University in declaring him ineligible for the said post cannot be doubted.
6. The third prayer made in the writ petition pertains to private respondent no.4 who also is a candidate for the post of Deputy Registrar. He has been called for interview, which is scheduled for today.
7. The case of the petitioner is that earlier uptil year 2023 he had worked as Probationary Officer in a Bank and the University has wrongly extended him the benefit of past service while counting his experience for the post in question.
8. As the petitioner himself is not eligible for the post in question, therefore, he has no locus to raise any issue regarding ineligibility of the private respondent.
9. The petition is, consequently, dismissed for want of locus on the part of the petitioner to challenge the eligibility of the private respondent in the present proceedings.
10. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.) Dated: 09.07.2026 SS