UKHC010061512021

2026:UHC:7068- DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 188 of 2021 (S/B)

Km. Poonam Bhatt and Others …… Petitioners

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents

Presence:

Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.

Pankaj Tangwan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State of

Uttarakhand.

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent

nos. 3 & 4.

With

Writ Petition No. 287 of 2021 (S/B)

Dharmendra Prasad and Others …… Petitioners

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and others ……Respondents

Presence:

Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.

Pankaj Tangwan, learned counsel for the petitioners.

Mr. N.K. Papnoi, learned Addl. C.S.C. for the State of

Uttarakhand.

Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent

nos. 3 & 4.

Reserved on : 03.08 .2026

Delivered on : 11.08

.2026

Coram: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)

Since the same judgment / order dated

03.05.2021 passed by Uttarakhand Public Services Tribunal

2

has been assailed in both the petitions, therefore, both the

petitions are being taken together and decided by this

common judgment. For convenience, facts of Writ Petition

No. 188 of 2021 (S/B), are being taken into consideration.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the

petitioners have assailed the judgment and order dated

03.05.2021, passed by the Uttarakhand Public Service s

Tribunal in Claim Petition No.33/NB/DB/2019.

3. Background facts narrated in the writ petition are

being stated hereunder :

i. The petitioners and private respondents

appeared in the selection process initiated by the

Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services for filling

up the post of Pharmacist. An advertisement was

issued on 5

th October, 2009 and the selection

committee was constituted as per the

Uttarakhand Ayurvedic and Unani Pharmacist

Service Rules, 2009. The appointment to the post

of Pharmacist was made on the basis of select list

to be prepared under Rule 15 of the service rules.

The duly constituted selection committee in its

meeting held on 25-11-2009 took a decision that

the candidates, who have passed the examination

through back paper/ supplementary examination

3

would be treated as a separate class and shall be

placed in the merit list below the candidates, who

had passed the examination without any

supplementary or back paper examination. The

respondent no. 3 and 4 and other six candidates

who had obtained their diploma examination

through back paper/ supplementary examination

were, as such, placed below in the merit list and

could not be appointed.

ii. The respondent no. 3 and Sri Rakesh Negi filed

a writ petition no. 1231 of 2009 (S/S) (“the writ

petition”) before this Court initially with a prayer

that the respondent authorities be directed to

consider their names in the final selection list of

Pharmacist in Ayurvedic and Unani services and

issue appointment letters to them in view of the

higher rank and marks obtained by them in batch

of year 2007 application.

iii. Later through an amendment application, the

respondent no. 3 and Sri Rakesh Negi prayed for

quashing of the select list and persons who were

likely to be affected were impleaded as a party to

the writ petition.

4

iv. This Court on 3

rd August, 2012 was pleased to

allow the writ petition and the select list was

quashed and the official respondents were

directed to prepare a fresh select list in

accordance with the rules and to issue

appointment orders.

v. The petitioners and other candidates who were

not a party to the writ petition and were affected

by the order dated 3

rd August, 2012 sought leave

to appeal and filed a S pecial Appeal no. 273 of

2012 namely, Ansul Rawat and others Vs. State of

Uttarakhand and others (“the special appeal”).

The Hon'ble Court on 4

th September, 2012 was

pleased to dismiss the special appeal and

application to leave to file the special appeal,

however, it was provided that "this order will not

prevent the applicants seeking leave to appeal to

take such recourse to law as they may be advised,

in the event, they are reappointed, to seek their

appointment with effect from the date they were

originally appointed ".

vi. In pursuance to the order dated 3

rd August,

2012, passed in the writ petition and the order

dated 4

th September, 2012, passed in the special

appeal, the State Government considered the

5

matter and vide order dated 25

th September,

2012, the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani Services,

Dehradun, who is appointing authority, was

asked to prepare afresh merit list and to initiate

the process of appointment. In pursuance to the

said direction, the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani

Services, Dehradun on 07-11-2012 issued the

order of appointment / reappointment. In the said

order, it was clarified that the appointment/

reappointment order includes the name of the

persons, who were already appointed. It was also

stipulated in the said order that by including the

name of the candidates, who have to be given the

benefit of the order passed by the Hon'ble Court

in writ petition and the special appeal, the order

of appointment/ reappointment is being issued.

In the said order, it was also specified that the

candidates, who were placed at serial no. 10, 19,

78, 98, 130, 135, 136 and 138 would complete

the formalities of providing the medical certificates

of the concerned Chief Medical Officer, character

certificate, educational and preferential

qualification certificate, birth certificate and other

relevant documents before submitting their

joining before the concerned District Ayurvedic

and Unani Officer.

6

vii. The said stipulation was made with respect to

the said 08 candidates only and all other 230

candidates, which includes the petitioners also,

there was no such stipulation as the petitioners

as well as the aforesaid other candidates were

already working since 2009 without any break in

service with the department.

viii. The respondent no. 3 and 4 were placed at

serial no. 10 and 19 in the said order dated 07-

11-2012 and Sri Rakesh Negi, who had earlier

filed the writ petition with the respondent no. 3,

was placed at serial no. 78.

ix. A tentative seniority list was issued on 10-09-

2018 and objections were invited against the said

tentative seniority list and the respondent no. 3

did not raise any objection towards his placing in

the seniority list and the respondent no. 4 raised

objection towards the correction of his date of

birth and the said objection was accepted and his

date of birth was corrected.

x. After the disposal of the objection, the final

seniority list was issued on 5 -3-2019. It is

submitted that due to typographical error, the

date was mentioned as 5-3-2018, which was later

7

corrected and infact, the correct date of final

seniority list is 5-3-2019.

xi The respondent no. 3 and 4 feeling aggrieved by

the final seniority list dated 5th March, 2019

preferred a claim petition no. 33/NB/DB/2019

before the Public Service Tribunal.

xii. The respondents as well as present petitioners

filed their counter affidavit to which rejoinder

affidavit was filed by the respondent no. 3 and 4.

xiii. The learned Public Service Tribunal after

hearing the parties, was pleased to allow the claim

petition and final seniority list dated 5-3-2018/5-

3-2019 was set aside and official respondents

have been directed to prepare a fresh seniority

list, within three months.

4. The order passed by the Uttarakhand Public Service

Tribunal is challenged mainly on the following grounds:-

i. Seniority of the petitioners was rightly fixed by the

department in view of the fact that the petitioners

were initially appointed on 11-12-2009, whereas the

private respondent nos. 3 and 4 were appointed on

07-11-2012 alongwith the petitioners who were

reappointed on the said date.

8

ii. The learned Public Service Tribunal equated the

appointment given to the respondent no. 3 and 4 and

other 6 candidates with the reappointment granted to

the petitioners and other 230 candidates.

iii. The language of the order dated 07- 11-2012 of

appointment/ reappointment and stipulation made in

the order asking the respondent no. 3 and 4 and

other six candidates to submit their fresh joining,

made it clear that in the case of said respondent no. 3

and 4 and other 6 candidates, i t was a fresh

appointment.

iv. The petitioners continued to work since 2009

without any break in service and were provided the

benefit of pay protection, as such, it is clear that the

official respondents, in compliance of the order dated

07-11-2012 in special appeal, had considered their

case for grant of reappointment w.e.f. the date they

were originally appointed.

v. There was no occasion for the petitioners to take

recourse to law as the official respondents had

already provided the reappointment to the petitioners

w.e.f. the date they were originally appointed, as

such, the petitioners were not aggrieved by the order

of reappointment dated 07- 11-2012.

vi. The learned Public Service Tribunal did not

consider the difference between appointment and

9

reappointment and had erroneously held that the

petitioners and respondent no. 3 and 4 were

appointed by the order dated 07- 11-2012.

5. The respondent nos. 3 and 4 filed their counter

affidavit and mainly contended that :

(a) That after careful reading of both the aforesaid

judgment dated 03.08.2012, passed in the writ

petition and 04.09.2012, passed in the special appeal ,

it is crystal clear that this Hon'ble High Court did not

give any liberty to the official respondents to

appoint/reappoint the petitioners and other

incumbents who were selected and appointed on

11.12.2009, from the date they were originally

appointed and also the official respondent i.e.

Government of Uttarakhand accepted the Judgment

Dated 03.08.2012 and did not prefer any appeal

against said Judgment.

(b) That after careful reading of Judgment Dated

04.09.2012 it is also crystal clear that the liberty has

been given to the Petitioners and other incumbents

who preferred the special appeal on their appeal to

take such recourse to law as they may be advised, in

the event, they are reappointed, to seek their

appointment with effect from the date they were

originally appointed but as per the admitted fact

before the Tribunal also by filing Written Statement

10

neither the Petitioners nor any of the incumbents

approached the Court of law to seek their

appointment from the date they were originally

appointed i.e. the Petitioners as well as other

incumbents also accepted the Judgment Dated

03.08.2012 in its totality. In this regard before the

Tribunal in Claim Petition the answering Respondent

took the said Plea in Para No. VIII and while filing the

Written Statement the petitioners did not specifically

reply the pleadings of the answering respondents.

(c) That if we read together both the Rule 20 of

Uttarakhand Ayurvedic Evam Unani Bhashjik

(Pharmacists) Service Rules 2009 and Rule 5

Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules

2002, then we will find that after Judgment Dated

03.08.2012 and 04.09.2012, the State Government

issued the Government Order Dated 25.09.2012 and

appointment/reappointment order Dated 07.11.2012

and in both the orders they never said that the

reappointment of the private respondents are being

made from the date when they were originally

appointed, therefore in view of Rule 20 of

Uttarakhand Ayurvedic Evam Unani Bhashjik

(Pharmacists) Service Rules 2009 read with Rule 5

Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority Rules

2002, the Petitioners as well as answering

respondents were appointed on the result of any one

11

selection and their inter se seniority shall be

determined only on the basis of merit list prepared by

the commission or committee, therefore the Seniority

List as prepared by the official res pondents is against

the law and rightly set aside by the Learned Tribunal.

It is also relevant to mention here that in this case the

official respondents failed to determin e the seniority

as per Rule 20 of Uttarakhand Ayurvedic Evam Unani

Bhashjik (Pharmacists) Service Rules 2009 and Rule

5 of Uttarakhand Government Servants Seniority

Rules 2002, therefore the answering respondents

challenged the Seniority List before the Learned

Tribunal and the learned Tribunal passed the

impugned order as per Law.

(d) That it is also relevant to mention here that after

the Judgment dated 03.08.2012 and 04.09.2012 by

which the entire selection process has been quashed

by the Hon'ble High Court and in view of the direction

issued by the Hon'ble High Court the official

respondent issued the order dated 07.11.2012 and in

the event when petitioners did not avail the liberty as

granted by the Hon'ble High Court in view of the

Judgment Dated 04.09.2012 and even then their

appointment treated from 11.12.2009 in the

impugned Seniority List, then in that situation it

amounts nullifying the Judgment of Hon'ble High

Court Dated 03.08.2012 and 04.09.2012 by the

12

Official Respondents, and as per the settled law, it

cannot be allowed to be done merely by issuing the

appointment/reappointment order dated 07.11.2012,

which is completely silent on the issue, moreover the

Government Order Dated 25.09.2012 by which the

Government of Uttarakhand permitted to the Director

issue fresh appointment order in view of Judgment

dated 03.08.2012 and 04.09.2012 is also completely

silent on the issue and neither the Government of

Uttarakhand by its Government Order Dated

25.09.2012 nor the Director Ayurvedic and Unani has

stated in its order dated 25.09.2012 and 07.11.2012

that the petitioners as well as other incumbents who

are reappointed will be given their reappointment

from the date they were originally appointed, meaning

thereby neither the Government of Uttarakhand nor

the Director Ayurvedic and Unani in its order given

the reappointment to the Petitioners as well as other

incumbents from the date they were originally

appointed, merely in the order dated 07.11.2012 by

saying that the answering respondents will complete

the formalities before submitting their joining, cannot

be override the Judgment Dated 03.08.2012 and

04.09.2012.

(e) That it is settled principle of law that the

Judgment Passed by the Hon'ble High Court is law of

land and binding precedent over the authorities as

13

well as parties to the case, and once the Judgment

Dated 03.08.2012 and 04.09.2012 attained finality, it

cannot be override by order dated 07.11.2012 issued

by Respondent No.2.

(f) It is wrong to say that there was not a single day

break in service of the petitioners since 2009 and they

were given the salary protection and continuity in

service, it is again relevant to submit here that after

the Judgment Dated 03.08.2012 as per the law there

is service break in the service of the petitioners from

03.08.2012 till 07.11.2012 when the official

respondents issued the fresh appointment/

reappointment orders and while issuing the same

neither in the Order Dated 07.11. 2012 nor in

Government order dated 25.09.2012, the official

respondents appointed the petitioners from the date

they were originally appointed and both the said

orders are completely silent on the issue, apart from

that vide Judgment dated 04.09.2012 the H on'ble

Division Bench given the liberty to the petitioners to

approach the Court of law in the event, they are

reappointed, to seek their appointment with effect

from the date they were originally appointed but the

petitioners failed to avail the said liberty as granted by

the Hon'ble Division Bench and both the Judgment

Dated 03.08.2012 and 04.09.2012 attained finality.

14

6. Before proceeding further, it needs to be mentioned

that while allowing the claim petition, the Uttarakhand Public

Service Tribunal ha s inter alia taken the following into

consideration: -

(a) We are also of the view that the seniority could

only be settled as per serial number and merit of the

persons, mentioned in their fresh appointment order

dated 07.11.2012, because the substantive

appointment of the petitioners as well as private

respondents and other incumbents shall be deemed

to be made vide order dated 07.11.2012 and,

therefore, their seniority can only be fixed on the

basis of such fresh order of substantive appointment.

Unless the private respondents were given initial

appointment with back date, they cannot be treated

appointed in 2009, in contravention of the order of

Hon'ble High Court. Neither the State respondent nor

the private respondents had exercised the liberty

granted to them by the Division Bench of Hon'ble

High Court for seeking and getting fresh appointment

from the date, they were originally appointed. Hence,

without getting the appointment effective from back

date, the private respondents cannot be treated to be

appointed in 2009, prior to the appointment of the

petitioners.

(b) Learned A.P.O. has raised objection that tentative

seniority list was issued and no objections were raised

15

against the same and now, the petitioners cannot

raise their objections in this case. We find no force in

this argument, because of the reasons that

respondent No. 2 also raised an objection to settle the

seniority as per the order of the Court but his

objection was not considered mentioning the fact that

order of Hon'ble High Court was only about the

preparation of the merit list and for the purpose of

seniority, the date of appointment is to be seen. This

fact is proved by Annexure: 1, in which at Sl. No. 80,

the objections of Rakesh Kumar Rawat was disposed

of in this manner and the final seniority list (Parpatra-

II) was issued. The names of the petitioners were

placed at sl. No. 663 and 664 in the seniority list

whereas, their names should have figured at Sl. No.

352 and 360 just below Ms. Deepa Saini and Km.

Poonam Bhatt respectively.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

8. Mr. B.D. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the petitioners while reiterating the

grounds agitated in the petition, would submit that the

petitioners, after having been granted the initial appointment in

the year 2009, were never given any break and their services

continued uninterruptedly, and in the meantime, they received

due service benefits like pay protection , etc. Though the re-

appointment order was issued on 07.11.2012, yet their seniority

16

has to be counted from the date when they were originally

appointed in the year 2009, and the Public Service Tribunal,

having taken a view otherwise and has committed a serious error

by allowing the claim petition.

9. Per contra, Mr. H.M. Bhatia, learned counsel for the

respondent nos. 2 and 3 would contend that :

i. That by virtue of the judgment and order

dated 03.08.2012, the resolution of the selection

committee dated 25.11.2009 was quashed and

the select list prepared on the basis of the

resolution of the selection committee was also

quashed, and a mandamus was issued

commanding the respondents to publish a fresh

list in accordance with Rule 15(5) of the

Uttarakhand Ayurvedic and Unani Pharmacist

Service Rules, 2009.

ii. The judgment/order dated 03.08.2012,

passed by the learned Single Judge was

thereafter confirmed in Special Appeal No. 273

of 2012, by the judgment and order dated

04.09.2012 passed by the Division Bench ,

wherein the Leave to Appeal as well as Special

Appeal was dismissed. However, the order dated

04.09.2012 was not to prevent the applicants of

the Special Appeal to seek such recourse to law

as may be advised, in the event, they are re-

17

appointed, to seek their appointment with effect

from the date when they were originally

appointed.

iii. Vide G.O. dated 25.09.2012, the Government

directed the Director, Ayurvedic and Unani to

prepare a fresh list and initiate the appointment

process in compliance with the orders of the

Hon'ble High Court dated 03.08.2012 and

04.09.2012.

iv. In pursuance of the order dated 25.09.2012,

the respondent department issued the seniority

list dated 05.03.2018/05.03.2019, which is in

pursuance to the orders of Hon’ble Court dated

03.08.2012 and 04.09.2012.

v. The Public Service Tribunal has passed the

impugned order dated 03.05.2021 as per law

inasmuch as unless the private respondents

were given initial appointment with back date,

they cannot be treated appointed in 2009, in

contravention of the order of Hon'ble High

Court. Neither the State respondent nor the

private respondents had exercised the liberty

granted to them by the Division Bench of

Hon'ble High Court for seeking and getting fresh

appointment from the date, they were originally

appointed. Hence, without getting the

18

appointment effective from back date, the

private respondents cannot be treated to be

appointed in 2009, prior to the appointment of

the petitioners.

At the end, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners

has also submitted that due to the order impugned, the

petitioners shall be placed in the seniority below the 2010 &

2011 batches, hence some protection be granted. We are afraid

that this aspect cannot be considered in this petition.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties &

perusing the record, it is clear that the resolution of Selection

Committee dated 25.11.2009 was quashed vide judgment / order

dated 03.08.2012 and a fresh list was to be issued. The

judgment / order dated 03.08.2012 attained finality vide

judgment / order dated 04.09.2012, passed in SPA No. 273 of

2012 and though liberty was granted to the appellants thereof

the petitioner did not take steps to seek appointment w.e.f. the

date they were originally appointed. Vide G.O. dated

25.09.2012, the Government directed to initiate the appointment

process in compliance of orders dated 03.08.2012 and

04.09.2012. In pursuance to G.O. dated 25.09.2012, the

seniority list dated 05.03.2018 / 05.03.2019 was issued. Neither

the petitioners exercised liberty to be given appointment f rom the

date they were appointed nor their appointment was effective

from the date of appointment. Hence, the seniority list treating

them to be appointed in the year 2009 was thus erroneous and

19

in utter violation of judgments / orders of this Court dated

03.08.2012 and 04.08.2012.

11. Thus, from the aforesaid, it is clear that the impugned

order dated 03.05.2021 has taken into consi deration the prior

orders passed by this Court on 03.08.2012 and the judgment

and order dated 04.09.2012, has also considered the Rules of

2009 and after considering all the relevant submissions of

counsel for both the parties, has rightly came to the conclusion

that the names of the petitioners in the final seniority list was not

placed as per their place in the substantive appointment and by

treating the initial appointment of the private respondents in

2009, an error has been committed in settling the seniority. As

the petitioners as well as private respondents and other

incumbents were appointed to the service under the Rules vide

order dated 07.11.2012 hence, their seniority can only be fixed in

accordance with the merit settled therein.

12. After carefully examining all the aspects of the case

and the impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2021, it is

clear that the order of the Uttarakhand Public Service Tribunal is

a well considered, just & proper and does not require any

interference as it has been passed in accordance with the

provisions of law and has rightly set-aside the seniority list dated

05.03.2018/05.04.2019 and is in consonance with the earlier

orders dated 03.08.2012 and 04.09.2012 passed by this Court.

20

13. In view of the above, the writ petitions lack merit and

the same are dismissed as such.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J. )

11.08.2026 11.08.2026

Shiv/