Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/108/2024 of SUNDER SINGH KARKI Vs UTTARAKHAND SUBORDINATE SERVICE SELECTION COMMISSION on 6 May 2025
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 57D WPSS No. 108 of 2024 With WPSS No. 109 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal,
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.
SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 57D
WPSS No. 108 of 2024 With WPSS No. 109 of 2024 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Priyanka Agarwal, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos. 2 and 3. By means of instant petitions, the petitioners challenge the decision of the respondent no.1 Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (“the UKSSSC”) by which the candidature of the petitioners has been rejected for appointment as Driver. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.08.2021 made the respondent no.1, the UKSSSC, the petitioners responded for their appointment as Driver, but finally, their candidatures were rejected by the communication dated 08.01.2024 of the UKSSSC (Annexure 12), which records that since the petitioners were working with the Chairman of the UKSSSC, the fact which they did not disclose, therefore, their candidatures deserves to be rejected and accordingly, it was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working with UPNL through PRD. They were not required to get any NOC as per advertisement because they were not in Government service. Today, when the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would submit that the candidature of the petitioner has not been rejected and now the respondent no.1, the UKSSSC had sent a recommendation for appointment of the petitioners to the Administrative Department. The statement given by learned counsel for the respondent no.1 is taken on record.
In view of the statement given by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, the writ petitions are disposed of.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.) 06.05.2025 Jitendra