2026:UHC:2273- DB

Reserved

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

AND

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 423 OF 2025

Himanshu Aswal & another …..Appellants.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. B.M. Pingal, learned counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing

Counsel with Mr. S.M.S. Mehta,

learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pankaj Miglani , learned

counsel.

Counsel for Private Respondents : Mr. Amar Murti Shukla and Mr.

Vinay Kumar, learned counsel.

With

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 43 3 OF 2025

Suraj & others …..Appellants.

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellants : Mr. Ankur Sharma, learned

counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing

Counsel with Mr. S.M.S. Mehta,

learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned

counsel.

Counsel for Respondent No.5 : Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned

counsel.

And

SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 56 OF 2026

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission …..Appellant.

Versus

2

State of Uttarakhand & others ….Respondents.

Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned

counsel.

Counsel for the State : Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Standing

Counsel with Mr. S.M.S. Mehta,

learned Brief Holder.

Counsel for Respondent No.4 : Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, learned

counsel.

Judgment Reserved on:24.03.2026

Judgment Delivered on:01.04.2026

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT :(per Hon’ble The Chief Justice Mr. Manoj Kumar Gupta)

1. These intra-court appeals have been filed against

the common judgment and order of learned Single Judge

dated 04.12.2025, passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.131 of

2025, “Prakash Singh vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”.

2. Special Appeal Nos.423 of 2025 and 433 of 2025

have been filed by the selected candidates whose selection

pursuant to the selection list dated 08.01.2025 stands

adversely affected as a result of the impugned judgment and

connected Special Appeal No.56 of 2026 has been preferred

by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter

referred to as “the Commission”).

3. The learned Single Judge has partly allowed the

writ petition in the following terms:-

“27. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition

is partly allowed.

28. The select list dated 08.01.2025 issued by the

respondent Commission is to be revised so as to ensure that in the

Urban Development Department, only those candidates are eligible

3

for appointment to the post of Draughtsman, who have done their

Diploma/ ITI Certificate in Draughtsman trade only.

29. The select list dated 08.01.2025 issued by the

respondent Commission is quashed to the extent it includes

candidates holding Diploma/ certificate other than Diploma/ ITI

certificate in Draughtsman in Urban Development Department.

30. The respondent Commission is directed to issue a

revised select list for appointment to the post of Draughtsman in

pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.05.2023 and its

corrigendum issued by the Commission, in the light of the

observations made above within a month.”

4. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of the instant

special appeals are as follows:-

4(i). The Commission issued an advertisement on

29.05.2023 for holding recruitment on the post of

Draftsman/ Cartographer in five departments of the

Government of Uttarakhand. Later on, by a

corrigendum dated 23.06.2023, 12 posts of Draftsman /

Cartographer in PWD Department were also included in

the selection process. Thus, in all there were 77 posts,

in respect of which, recruitme nt was held. The

petitioner along with other candidates appeared in the

written test comprising of objective type questions on

05.11.2023. Based on the same, on 21.12.2023, the

Commission issued a list of candidates shortlisted for

document verification, in which the name of the

petitioner also figured. During document verification, it

was observed that in service rules of three departments,

i.e. Forest Department, Agriculture Department and

4

Culture Department, diploma in Civil Engineering i s

stipulated as one of the minimum essential

qualifications , but the Service Rules of the Urban

Development Department provided for Diploma/ ITI

certificate in the ‘concerned trade’ as the essential

qualification without naming the qualification or the

trade. The Service Rules in respect of Minor Irrigation

Department and Public Works Department mentions

Diploma and equivalent diploma as the required

qualification.

4(ii) A large number of candidates, who had

cleared the cut-off in the document verification list, held

Diploma in Civil Engineering and have marked their

preferences in all the departments. Hence, the

Commission, in order to clarify as to what would be the

‘concerned trade’ in which Diploma/ ITI certification

could be treated as a required qualification in the Urban

Development Department and what could be treated as

equivalent diploma in Minor Irrigation Department and

Public Works Department, vide three separate letters all

dated 05.01.2024, addressed to each department ,

sought clarification. In response to the same, the Urban

Development Department, vide letter dated 01.05.2024,

clarified that under Rule 8(3) clause (ii) of the

Uttarakhand Palika (Non-Centralized) Employees Service

5

(Group-C) Rules, 2017, the term ‘diploma/ ITI

certificate’ in the concerned trade refers to Diploma in

Civil Engineering, Diploma/ Certificate in Draftsmanship

(Cartography)/ Diploma/ Certificate in Architectural

Assistantship. The Minor Irrigation Department and

Public Works Department clarified regarding equivalence

vide their letters dated 21.02.2024 and 24.02.2024

respectively. Based on the clarification provided by the

Departments, the Commission proceeded with the

selection process and issued the final select list.

4(iii) The petitioner possesses Diploma in

Draftsmanship and as stated above, though, he was

called at the stage of document verification, his name

did not figure in the final select list.

5. It is noteworthy that at the stage of document

verification, where 225 candidates were called, as against 77

vacancies (i.e. about three times), the cut-off marks for the

unreserved category candidates having Diploma in

Draftsmanship was 112.9442. The petitioner who had scored

141.3782 marks, was therefore called for document

verification. At the final stage, the cut-off for the general

category in the Urban Development Department w as

144.6418 and in other departments also, it was much higher

6

than 141.3782, the marks of the petitioner. Consequently,

the petitioner’s name did not find place in the final select list.

Petitioner’s contention before the Writ Court.

6. The petitioner’s contention in the writ petition was

that the Commission, after declaration of cut-off marks on

21.12.2023, could not have changed the rules of the game

under garb of seeking any clarification from the concerned

departments. The petitioner also contended that in respect of

Urban Development Department, the Rules provided for a

specific qualification, i.e. Diploma/ ITI certificate in

‘concerned trade’, which means Draftsman and thus,

Diploma/ ITI certificate in Draftsman is the only qualification

prescribed under the Rules. There was, consequently, no

ambiguity in the Rules in respect of Urban Development

Department, nor any occasion for the Commission to seek

any clarification in respect of the vacancies in the Urban

Development Department.

7. In respect of Minor Irrigation Department and

Public Works Department, the contention of the petitioner

before the Writ Court was that the question of equivalence of

any qualification to the prescribed qualification under the

Service Rules is a matter which could have been decided only

by the Expert Body and, that too, after taking into

consideration the relevant aspects, like syllabus, curriculum

7

and the requirements of the job. The clarification given by

the afore-said two departments for treating certain other

qualifications as equivalent to the prescribed qualification was

merely based on recommendation of a Committee comprising

of officials of the Department and not of any Expert Body,

therefore, in any event, the same could not have been relied

upon by the Commission in treating any other qualification as

an equivalent qualification.

Proceedings before the Writ Court

8. On 18.02.2025, direction was issued to the

Commission to explain how, after notifying cut-off marks on

21.12.2023, it could write to the Government to clarify on the

eligibility and prepare a fresh merit list, thereby ousting en-

block the candidates having certificates/ diploma in

draftsmanship. Appointments in pursuance of the select list

was also kept in abeyance. The relevant direction, as

contained in Paragraph Nos.12 and 13 of the order dated

18.02.2025, is extracted below:-

“12. Let the respondents may file their affidavit within a

week to explain how the Commission wrote a letter to the

Government seeking clarification on the eligibility and prepare a

fresh merit list by changing cut- off marks by ousting candidates

enbloc having certificate/ diploma in draftsman once the selection

is over.

13. Till further orders pursuant to the impugned select list

no appointment letter shall be issued.”

8

9. Pursuant to the above direction, an affidavit was

filed by the Commission and therein, it explained the

circumstances, in which, it sought clarification from the

concerned departments. Paragraph Nos.6 to 11 of the said

affidavit, which are relevant to the controversy, are extracted

below for ease of reference.

“6. That according to the requisition and advertisement, as

per the relevant service rules: In the three departments i.e. (i) The

Forest Department, (ii) Agriculture Department and (iii) Culture

Department require a Diploma in Civil Engineering as an education

qualification but the Urban Development Department specifies

Diploma/ ITI Certificate in the relevant trade as a mandatory

qualification. Similarly, the Minor Irrigation Department also

requires a qualification equivalent to the mandatory diploma. The

Public Works Department mentions an equivalent diploma as the

required qualification. During document verification, it was

observed that most of the candidates who had cleared the cut- off

in the document verification list held Diplomas in Civil Engineering

have marked their preferences in all the departments. It was

hence, to determine equivalent educational qualification for the

Urban Development Department, Minor Irrigation Department and

Public Works Department, a letter was sent to these departments

on January 5, 2024, but the Commission. The letter inquired

whether candidates holding a Diploma in Civil Engineering,

Draftsmanship (Cartography), or Architectural Assistantship

(similar to other departments) could be considered eligible for

these positions. The true copy of the letter dated 05.01.2024 is

annexed herewith as

Annexure CA 2.

7. That in response thereto the Urban Development

Department vide letter No.479 dated May 1, 2024 clarified that under Rule 08(3), Clause 02 of the Uttarakhand Municipal

(Decentralized) Employee Service (Group ‘C’) Rules 2017, the term

“Diploma/ ITI Certificate in the relevant trade” refers to: Diploma

in Civil Engineering, Diploma/ Certificate in Draftsmanship

(Cartography), Diploma/ Certificate in Architectural Assistantship.

The true copy of the letter dated 01.05.2024 is annexed herewith

as

Annexure CA 3.

8. That vide its Letter No.1809 dated February 21, 2024 the

Minor Irrigation Department clarified regarding equivalent

9

recognized certificates that in other engineering departments, the

service rules for the Draftsman cadre include qualification such as

Diploma in Civil Engineering, Diploma/ Certificate in

Draftsmanship, or Diploma/ Certificate in Architectural

Assistantship. Therefore, if the Uttarakhand Public Service

Commission proceeds with further action based on similar

qualifications, the department has no objections. The true copy of

the letter dated 21.02.2024 is annexed a

Annexure CA 4.

9. That vide Letter No.122 dated February 24, 2024 the

Public Works Department conveyed that the Secretary of the Uttarakhand Technical Education Board, Roorkee, Haridwar, in a letter dated February 22, 2024, confirmed that for the post of

Cartographer under the Public Works Department, point B (i), (ii) &

(iii) mentions the mandatory educational qualifications i.e. diploma

from a recognized institute or an equivalent diploma from any

other institute would also consider the candidates with Diploma in

Civil Engineering, Certificate in Draftsmanship, or Diploma/

Certificate in Architectural Assistantship as eligible for the post of

Cartographer under the mandatory educational qualifications. The

true copy of the letter dated 24.02.2024 is annexed as

Annexure

CA 5.

10. That it is also noteworthy that there was no

representative from Uttarakhand Public Service Commission in the committee constituted by the government/ department to determine equivalence. Based on the report provided by the government/ department regarding the equivalent qualifications,

the answering respondent carried out the selection process in terms of the educational qualifications of the candidates and the departmental priority, in the order of merit/ excellence. Therefore,

the selection process by the Commission has been conducted very

fairly and in accordance with rules.

11. That the interim order dated 18.02.2025 passed by this

Hon’ble Court mentions that the selection process was complete

with the document verification list issued on 21.12.2023, and the

cut-off marks of document verification list dated 21.12.2023 was

changed in the final selection result dated 08.01.2025. It is

clarified that the above-mentioned observation by the Hon’ble High

Court is not factually correct as the document verification list

issued by the Commission on 21.12.2023 was not the final

selection result but contained the list of almost thrice (225) the

number of vacancies (77). The answering respondent follows the

Uttarakhand Public Service Commission Examination Result

Preparation Procedure Rules-2022. As per these rules a document

10

verification list of twice/ thrice number of candidates is issued

based on the category-wise/ subcategory-wise number of vacant

positions before issuing the final selection result. This list is issued

by the Confidential Section (Gopan Anubhag) of the answering

respondent in which no marks of any candidate is being reflected

at the time of issuing the list for document verification, also the

marks of the candidates are kept secret and the cut off marks are

released on the basis of the said list. The document verification is

being done by a separate section of the answering respondent than

that of Confidential Section (Gopan Anubhag) and both these

sections have absolutely no concern with the each other. The

document verification list was issued on 21.12.2023, and the cut-

off marks issued were based on that list which contained the list of

225 candidates. It is also noteworthy that if the number of eligible

candidates during document verification is less than the number of

vacancies, a new document verification is issued. In the present

case, 98 candidates who appeared in the first document

verification were selected in the junior engineer examination, and

affidavits were sent by them regarding the cancellation of the

candidature for the concerned posts. In this regard, the

candidature of the 98 candidates was cancelled, and a

supplementary document verification list was issued on 09.1.2024.

The cut-off marks were then re-determined based on that list. Due

to the higher number of candidates being absent in the

supplementary document verification, a further supplementary list

was issued on 28.11.2024, and the cut-off marks were again re-

determined. After this, the final selection result was declared on

08.01.2025, based on the merit list derived from the written exam

marks of the eligible candidates. It should also be clarified that as

the number of candidates in the document verification list is higher

than the number of vacancies, the cut- off of final selection result is

always different from the cut- off pertaining to document

verification list. Therefore, the observation of this Hon’ble Court’s

order dated 18.02.2025, stating that the cut- off of 21.12.2023 was

changed to the final selection result of 08.01.2025 is factually

wrong. Thus, it is clear from the above that before issuing the

final selection result, the Commission communicated with the

government/ department regarding all equivalent qualifications,

and based on the information provided by the government/

department, the selection process was conducted in accordance

with the rules.”

11

10. On 17.03.2025, the appellants in Special Appeal

Nos.423 of 2025 and 433 of 2025 and some other selected

candidates applied for their impleadment in the writ petition.

On 18.03.2025, the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development

Department filed a counter-affidavit stating that in pursuance

of the letter of the Commission dated 05.01.2024, the

Director, Urban Development Department vide his letter

dated 11.01.2024, sought clarification from the State

Government. On 02.04.2024, a meeting under the

Chairmanship of Principal Secretary, Urban Development

Department, Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel and

Vigilance, Uttarakhand Government and Additional Director,

Urban Development Directorate, Uttarakhand was held. The

Committee deliberated over the issue and resolved that the

phrase ‘Diploma/ ITI certificate in concerned trade’ under

Rule 8(3) of the Uttarakhand Palika (Non- Centralized)

Employee Service (Group ‘C’) Rules, 2017 would mean

‘Diploma in Civil Engineering or Diploma/ Certificate in

Draftsman (Manchitrakar) or Diploma/ Certificate in

Architectural Assistant. The recommendation of the

Committee was thereafter communicated to the Commission

by the Directorate, Urban Development Department vide

letter dated 01.05.2024, together with a copy of the minutes

of the meeting dated 02.04.2024.

12

11. On 01.09.2025, the learned Single Judge passed a

detailed order accepting the contention of the petitioner that

the ‘concerned trade’ in the Service Rules of Urban

Development Department would mean Draftsman and no

other trade. The word ‘concerned trade’ is only related to the

post on which recruitment is to be made and since the

recruitment in question was for the post of Draftsman, the

concerned trade could only be Draftsman. Therefore, there

was no occasion for the Commission to seek any clarification

with reference to essential qualification for the post of

Draftsman in the Urb an Development Department. For

coming to the said conclusion, learned Single Judge has

placed reliance on the case of the Supreme Court in Zahoor

Ahmad Rather and others Vs. Sheikh Intiyaz Ahmad

and other and connected case, (2019) 2 SCC 404 ,

particularly, Paragraph No.27 thereof. The relevant findings

recorded by the learned Single Judge in this behalf, in respect

of Urban Development Department, are extracted below: -

“15. In the instant case, in so far as Urban Development

Department is concerned, the e ducation qualification is

Intermediate (10+2) from a Board/ Institution recognized by the

Central or State Government and Diploma/ ITI Certificate in the

concerned Trade from an Institution recognized by the Central or

State Government. This qualification is “THE” qualification for the

post. No equivalent qualification has been given for this post.

16. It is being argued on behalf of the Commission that one

of the essential qualifications for appointment of Draughtsman in

the Urban Development Department is Diploma/ ITI Certificate in

the concerned Trade. Pressing upon the word ‘concerned’ it is

argued that it was sought to be clarified by the Government that

13

what does this work ‘concerned’ mean. This argument has less

merits for acceptance. The essential qualification does not speak

of any equivalence. The word ‘concerned’ is only related to the

post on which recruitment is to be made and that post is

Draughtsman. At the cost of repetition, this Court reiterates that

the word ‘concerned’ relates to ‘Draughtsman’ and to no other. As

stated, there is no equivalence. Therefore, this court is of the view

that the respondent Commission has no occasion to seek any

clarification in so far as essential qualification for recruitment of

Draughtsman in the Urban Development Department is

concerned.”

12. In relation to Minor Irrigation Department and

Public Works Department, the learned Single Judge did not

find fault in the action of the Commission in seeking

clarification from the departments regarding equivalency as

the Service Rules provides for the same. However, the

learned Single Judge held that equivalency is the domain of

experts, who have to take decision based on proper

assessment and evaluation of the relevant academic

standards and practical attainments of such qualification. For

the said purpose, reliance has been placed on the judgment

of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Shujat Ali and others vs.

Union of India and others and connected matter,

(1975) 3 SCC 76 . The learned Single Judge, after holding

that equivalency in qualification communicated by the afore-

said departments to the Commission was based merely on

recommendations of its own officers and not on opinion of

any expert body, itself provided to constitute a Committee

comprising of the following persons to examine the question

14

of equivalency of qualification in respect of the post of

Draftsman in the Department of Minor Irrigation and Public

Works:-

“1) Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department, Minor Irrigation

Department, Uttarakhand.

2) Chief Engineer/ Head of the Department, Public Works

Department, Uttarakhand.

3) Head of the Department of Civil Engineering, IIT Roorkee,

Roorkee, District Haridwar.

4) One Expert of Uttarakhand Technical Education Council

Roorkee, District Haridwar, as may be nominated by its

Secretary.

5) An official of the Commission, as may be nominated by its

Secretary, who shall convene the meeting of this expert

body.”

13. In pursuance of the said direction, the Committee

examined the matter and submitted its report to the

Commission. The same was brought on record by the

Commission along with an affidavit dated 23.09.2025 and the

said Committee also recommended for treating diploma

holders in Civil Engineering and Architectural Assistant as

equivalent to the prescribed qualification, i.e. Certificate of

Draftsmanship.

14. On 04.12.2025, the learned Single Judge decided

the writ petition finally. The learned Single Judge held that

the issue in respect of Urban Development Department as to

whether Diploma/ ITI certificate in any trade other than

Draftsman could be recognized had attained finality by order

dated 01.09.2025 and, therefore, declined to re -examine the

15

same. In respect of Minor Irrigation Department and Public

Works Department, the Court repelled the challenge

advanced by the petitioner as the Committee of experts

constituted by it had also opined that Diploma in Civil

Engineering, Diploma/ Certificate in Draftsman, and Diploma/

Certificate in Architectural Assistant, would be equivalent

qualification to the prescribed qualification stipulated under

the relevant service rules. Accordingly, the writ petition has

been partly allowed and only in respect of Urban

Development Department, direction was issued to recast the

final select list by including only the candidates who have

Diploma/ ITI Certificate in Draftsmanship.

15. The questions which arise for consideration are,

whether the expression ‘concerned trade’ in the Service Rules

of the Urban Development Department admits of any

clarification by the employer; whether such clarification

amounts to alteration of the eligibility conditions; whether the

learned Single Judge was justified in restricting the eligibility

to Draftsman trade; whether the department was competent

to make clarification itself or it could have been done only

after referring the issue of equivalence to expert committee,

and; whether the clarification given by the Department

amounts to change of rules of the game during the progress

of selection process.

16

16. The essential qualification for the post of Draftsman

in respective departments as per the advertisement is as

follow:-

Sl.

No.

Department Essential Qualifications as per

Advertisement

1. Forest Department

(Cartographer)

A candidate for direct recruitment to a

post in the service must possess a

certificate of Draftsmanship or a

Diploma in Civil Engineering from a

recognized University or Institution.

2. Minor Irrigation Department

(Draftsman)

High School Examination from

U.P./Uttarakhand Board of Secondary

Education or any other equivalent

examination recognized by the

government. Cartography Certificate

from U.P./Uttarakhand State Council

for Technical Education or any other

government- recognized

equivalent certificate.

3. Public Works Department

(Cartographer)

(a) Must have passed the High School

Examination conducted by the

Uttarakhand Board of Secondary

Education or any other equivalent

examination recognized by the

government.

(b) Certificate of passing any of the

following examinations or courses:

1. Diploma in Draftsman from a

Polytechnic Institute recognized by

the Uttarakhand Board of Technical

Education or an equivalent diploma

from any other recognized institute in

Uttarakhand or any other State.

2. Diploma in Draftsman ship from an

Industrial Training Institute (ITI)

recognized by the Directorate of

Training & Employment, Uttarakhand,

or an equivalent diploma from any

other recognized institute in

Uttarakhand or any other State.

3. Diploma in Draftsmanship or an

equivalent degree awarded by a

University established by the law in

India.

4. Urban Development 1. Intermediate (10+2) from a

board/institution recognized by the

Central or State Government.

2. Diploma/ITI Certificate in the

Concerned Trade from an institution

recognized by the Central or State

Government.

5. Agriculture Department

(Cartographer)

a) High School Examination from the

Uttarakhand Board of Secondary

Education or any other equivalent

examination recognized by the

government.

b) One of the following qualifications:

1. Certificate in Cartography from

Roorkee University.

2. Certificate in Cartography issued

by the Uttarakhand State Council for

Technical Education.

3. Three-year Cartography Certificate

from Banaras Hindu University.

17

4. Three-year Diploma in Architectural

Assistance from Government Art

College, Lucknow.

5. Three-year Diploma in Civil

Engineering from Uttarakhand State

Council for Technical Education.

6. Diploma in Civil Engineering from

any government-recognized.

7. Cartography Certificate issued by

the National Council for Vocational

Training (NCVT), Ministry of Labour &

Employment, Government of India.

8. Two-and-a-half-year Cartography

Certificate from Aligarh Muslim

University.

6. Culture Department

(Cartographer)

1. Must have passed the High School

Examination from the Uttarakhand

Board of Secondary Education or any

other equivalent examination

recognized by the government.

2. Certificate or Diploma or any

degree in Civil Engineering or

Draftsman (Civil) or Architectural

Assistantship from any institution

recognized by the government.

17. Although, the Commission held a combined

selection for six departments, but service rules of every

department are separate. The selection and appointment to

the post of Draftsman in Urban Development Department is

governed by the Uttarakhand Palika (Non -Centralized)

Employees Services (Group ‘C’) Rules, 2017 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Rules”). Rule 8(3) prescribes the essential

qualification for various posts, includin g the post of

Draftsman, which is as follows:-

(3) Draftsman 1. Intermediate from a Board/

Institution recognized by the Centre or

State Government.

2. Diploma in concerned Trade/ I.T.I.

Certificate from a Institution recognized

by the Centre or State Government.

18. Thus, the essential qualification, apart from

intermediate degree, is “Diploma in concerned trade/ ITI

18

certificate.” The rule, thus, does not specify the trade, in

which, Diploma/ ITI certificate is required. In contrast, the

Service Rules of Forest Department, Culture Department and

Public Works Department specifies, inter alia, a Certificate of

Draftsman as one of the essential qualifications for the post.

Thus, the main issue is regarding interpretation of the

expression ‘concerned trade’ under the relevant Service Rules

in respect of Urban Development Department. The Service

Rule does not confine eligibility to a single specified trade. It

employs of broad and category based expression, namely,

‘concerned trade’, which is inherently referable to the

requirements of the post in the department concerned.

19. When the Commission noticed at the stage of

document verification where candidates more than two times

the number of vacancies were called that a large number of

candidates having Diploma/ ITI certificates in different trades

have also given preference for appointment, inter alia, in the

Urban Development Department, it sought clarification vide

its letter dated 05.01.2024 from the Urban Development

Department, which is the employer. The Urban Development

Department, being the employer, was aware of the nature of

duties attached to the post and the technical qualifications

required for its effective discharge. The Department

constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of Principal

Secretary, Urban Development Department, Joint Secretary,

19

Department of Personnel and Vigilance, Uttarakhand

Government and Additional Director, Urban Development

Directorate, Uttarakhand, which deliberated over the issue

and, thereafter, clarified that qualifications such as Diploma in

Civil Engineering and Architectural Assistant would fall within

the ambit of ‘concerned trade’. The clarification is not an

external addition to the eligibility condition, but an exposition

by the employer of the scope of the expression used in the

Service Rules and the advertisement.

20. Importantly, it is not a case where equivalence of

qualification was sought to be determined vis- à-vis specific

prescribed qualification in contrast to the Minor Irrigation

Department and Public Works Department. It is noteworthy

that in various other departments, there was specific mention

of Certificate of Draftsman as essential qualification, but in

the Service Rules governing the appointment to the post of

Draftsman in the Urban Deve lopment Department, the

Service Rules do not prescribe the Certificate of Draftsman,

but only speaks of ‘concerned trade’. The inquiry, therefore,

was not for equivalence, but identification of what constituted

the ‘concerned trade’ for the post. In such a situation, in our

considered opinion, no expert body was required. The

employer-department was the best judge of the scope of

work and the qualification necessary therefor.

20

21. Here, it is worthwhile to observe that the post of

Draftsman in Urban Development Department involve s not

only preparation of maps, but extends to preparation of

plans, layouts, and technical drawings requiring foundational

knowledge of Civil Engineering and Architectural principles

and, therefore, the Department being the employer, having

insight to the scope of work and nature of duties, was the

best judge to give clarification in respect of the ‘concerned

trade’, which would be relevant.

22. The principle that ‘Rules of the Game’ cannot be

changed midstream is not attracted to the facts of the instant

case inasmuch as there has been no alteration of the

eligibility conditions. What has been undertaken is only a

clarification of a open textured expression forming part of

service rules and the advertisement. Such clarification was

necessary to ensure a meaningful and workable selection

process and cannot be equated with changing the rules of the

game in midst of the selection process.

23. The learned Single Judge has placed much reliance

on Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra). In the said case, the

Supreme Court was dealing with the recruitment to the post

of Technician- III in the Power Development Department. The

post of Technician-III was created under a Government Order

dated 04.12.1996 and the qualification for that post was

21

“Matric with ITI”. The qualification for the post of Junior

Engineer which was a high er post was BE (Electrical)/

Diploma (Electrical). In the advertisement dated 23.02.2013,

the prescribed qualification was stated as “Matric with ITI in

relevant trade”. The advertisement contained a note to the

effect that mere possession of a higher qualification would not

entitle a candidate to be called for interview or to any

weightage unless so decided by the Board. During the course

of selection, the Board noticed inconsistency at the district

level. In some districts, candidates holding Diploma in

Electrical Engineering has been provisionally interviewed,

while in others, such diploma holders were treated as

ineligible. The matter was placed before the Board, and the

Board decided that only ITI in relevant trade, namely

Electrician, is to be considered as prescribed in the

advertisement. Thereafter, the final select list was issued in

which the diploma holders were excluded. The candidates

before the Supreme Court did not possess the ITI

qualification, but a higher qualification, namely, Diploma in

Electrical Engineering/ Electronic Engineering and since their

names were not included in the final select list, feeling

aggrieved, they approached the High Court. The learned

Single Judge in that case had taken a view that since Diploma

in Electrical Engineering was a higher qualification and

diploma holders could even be eligible for the higher post of

22

Junior Engineer, such candidates should not be excluded from

consideration for Technician-III. The matter was carried

forward in intra-court appeal and wherein, the judgment of

the learned Single Judge was reversed. What is significant in

the case of Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra) is the true ratio

of the decision. The Supreme Court did not hold as an

abstract proposition that expressions such as ‘relevant trade’

or ‘concerned trade’ must always receive a narrow

construction. What the Supreme Court held was that the

employer or the recruiting agency which has prescribed the

qualification and has understood the relevant trade in a

particular manner should be respected. T he Court cannot

enlarge the zone of eligibility by importing qualification, which

the employer has not accepted, as satisfying the prescription.

The Court also explained that Note 12 did not compel the

Board to treat higher qualifications as automatically satisfying

the basic eligibility requirement, it only conferred a discretion

to give weightage to higher qualifications among other

eligible candidates, if the Board so desired.

24. The distinction from the present case can,

therefore, be stated thus - in Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra),

the Board itself confined relevant trade to ITI Electrician and

excluded diploma holders, who lacked the mandatory ITI

qualification. The Supreme Court upheld that determination

and refused to substitute its own view merely because some

23

candidates possessed what they described as a higher

qualification. In the present case, however, the Urban

Development Department itself clarified that the ‘concerned

trade’ includes qualification, such as Diploma in Civil

Engineering and Architectural Assistant. Thus, unlike in

Zahoor Ahmed Rather (supra) where the candidate was

seeking inclusion of a higher qualification through the Court

of Law, in the instant case, the employer itself has identified

the scope of the work required for the post and the Court is

being invited to narrow the determination made by the

employer.

25. Indeed, if the ratio in Zahoor Ahmed Rather

(supra) is correctly applied, it supports the appellants rather

than the writ petitioner. The principle flowing from that

judgment is one of deference to the employer’s

understanding of the prescribed trade. In Zahoor Ahmed

Rather (supra) that understanding was restrictive. Here, the

employer’s understanding is broader. In both situations, the

same rule applies, i.e. the Court ought not to substitute its

own construction for that of the employer, unless the

employer’s view is shown to be arbitrary, malafide or contrary

to the governing rules. In the present case, no such

arbitrariness or malafide could be demonstrated.

24

26. Relying on the same ratio set out in Zahoor

Ahmed Rather (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench in “Manali

Chaudhary & others vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”,

(Special Appeal No.285 of 2025), refused to interfere with the

clarification given by the employer- State that two year

diploma in Agriculture prescribed for recruitment to the posts

of Sugar Cane Supervisor, would include three year diploma,

as after high- school, the duration of diploma course is three

years.

27. It is evident that the Commission, upon finding the

necessity for clarification, sought the same from the

concerned departments at the stage well before the

preparation of the final select list. The minutes of the

meeting dated 21.12.2023 presided by the Chairman of the

Commission and three Members, where in it was resolved to

seek clarification, form part of the record as Annexure SSA- 2.

The mere inclusion of name of the petitioner at the stage of

document verification, where candidates more than two times

the number of vacancies were called did not confer any

indefeasible right in favour of the petitioner to claim

appointment. The clarification given by the Department has

been applied uniformly by the Commission, and the petitioner

has failed to demonstrate any arbitrariness or discriminatory

action on part of the Commission in this regard.

25

28. Before parting, we take note of one more

submission on behalf of the writ petitioner. It was contended

that the order of the Single Judge dated 01.09.2025 holding

that no other qualification except Diploma/ ITI in Draftsman

would be admissible for the post of Urban Development

Department attained finality as it was not challenged at that

stage. The appellants cannot be permitted to reopen the

controversy by means of the present appeals. The argument

is specious and is to be rejected. Albeit, the order holds as

contended, but direction for revising the final result, on basis

of the said finding, which ultimately affected the appellants,

came to be issued while passing the final order. The order

passed on 01.09.2025, thus got merged with the final order

passed in the writ petition and while challenging the final

order, the validity of the order passed at the earlier stage of

the proceedings, i.e. 01.09.2025 can definitely be examined.

29. In view of the discussion made above, we are of

the firm opinion that judicial intervention by the Writ Court

was not needed and it has unnecessarily resulted in

derailment of the selection process.

30. Consequently, the appeals are allowed. The

judgment and order of learned Single Judge dated

04.12.2025 is set-aside. Interim order is vacated. The

26

Commission is at liberty to proceed ahead and conclude the

selection process without any further delay.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.

32. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.

(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA , C.J.)

(SUBHASH UPADHYAY , J.)

Dated: 01

st

April, 2026

NISHANT