Elam Chand Ramola vs State Of Uttarakhand & Anr.

UKHC010150512025

Writ Petition Service Single No. 1578 of 2025

23 September, 2026

Elam Chand Ramola

--Petitioner

Versus

State Of Uttarakhand and Another

--Respondents

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral)

By means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.09.2025 Annexure-4 to this writ petition to the extent it disqualified the petitioner post verification of documents. By the impugned order, the petitioner was declared ineligible for appointment on the post of Foreman Instructor in Government ITI on the ground that the petitioner has obtained diploma in Electrical Engineering as a regular candidate and qualification of intermediate as a private candidate in the overlapping years.

Petitioner, pursuant to the advertisement dated 20.10.2023, issued by respondent No.2 submitted his candidature for the post of Foreman (Instructor). In the advertisement, the educational qualification prescribed was that the candidate must have passed intermediate examination or equivalent qualification besides having a diploma from a recognized institute in concerned engineering

UKHC010150512025

branch and further 10 years’ teaching experience in a reputed ITI. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was having the intermediate qualification besides having three years’ diploma in Electrical Engineering from Shakambari Institute of Higher Education, Roorkee, which he had qualified in the year 2013. The petitioner obtained his intermediate qualification from a Government Intermediate College, Devtadhar, Tehri Garhwal in 2012 as a private candidate.

Petitioner participated in the selection process and he was called for document verification; the petitioner participated in the process of document verification. An ineligibility list was issued by respondent-Commission on 12.09.2025 in which the name of petitioner figured at serial no.1. The reason for declaring the petitioner as ineligible was that the petitioner obtained educational qualification i.e. intermediate (private) and diploma (regular) in the selfsame year.

Respondent no.2 has filed its counter-affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner possessed the mandatory educational qualifications-intermediate (private) and diploma (regular)- in the same academic year; as per the UGC notification, relaxation of two educational qualifications obtained in same academic year has been given in degree courses only and that too for three defined categories, which admittedly do not cover the case of the petitioner; hence no other two courses pursued together, as in the case in hand, are acceptable.

Petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit, annexing reply sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005, wherein information has been provided to him in terms of the Government Order issued on 16.01.2025, whereby it is explained that after implementation of National Education Policy, 2020, through UGC notification dated 02.05.2022, two educational qualifications obtained in a single academic year have been recognized.

UKHC010150512025

Though it appears to have been issued by UGC for higher education, but principles can be extended to the case in hand. Here, petitioner pursued 03 years Diploma in Engineering in academic year 2010-2013 as a regular student but at the same time pursued intermediate as private student in academic year 2011-2012. As a private student, the petitioner had not to attend classes; he only appeared in the examination held in 2012 without any interruption in the 03 years Diploma in Engineering. Thus, it cannot be treated as illegal.

Since the petitioner fulfilled the qualification as per the advertisement issued by the Commission on 20.10.2023, the petitioner cannot be treated unfavorably by the respondent-commission in not recommending his name for the purpose of appointment. The reason for treating petitioner ineligible is highly illegal and arbitrary and cannot be sustained.

In such view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 12.09.2025 passed by the Respondent No.2-Commission, is hereby quashed so far as it relates to the petitioner. The Commission is directed to recommend the name of petitioner for appointment on the post of Foreman Instructor within a period of three weeks from today.