Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.2772 OF 2013 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (CIVIL) NO.17295 OF 2011]

State of Uttarakhand through Secretary           … Appellant

Versus

Kumari Amita Singh & Ors.                             … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.       The Public Service Commission Uttaranchal  issued an advertisement  

dated February 26, 2006 for appointment to the posts of Veterinary Doctor  

in the department of Animal Husbandry.  One of the conditions essential for  

making an application was that the applicant should be duly registered with  

Uttaranchal Veterinary Council.

3. The aforesaid condition was challenged before the Uttarakhand High  

Court in Writ Petition(S/B) No.98 of 2006.  The High Court passed a very

Page 2

brief order on the case.  It held without any deliberation or discussion that  

the impugned condition offended Article 16 of the Constitution of India and,  

though, declining to interfere with the 2006 advertisement on the ground that  

it was issued four years ago, it directed the State Government by order dated  

December  3,  2010  to  ensure  that  in  future  anyone  registered  with  the  

Veterinary Council of any of the States in the country should be eligible for  

appointment in Uttarakhand.  The relevant portion of the High Court order is  

as under:-

“….This  is  in  breach  of  constitutional  mandate  contained  in  Article  16  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   In  the  event  registration  as  a  Veterinary  Surgeon is considered to be the minimum eligible  qualification,  henceforth  the  State  Government  would ensure that persons registered as Veterinary  Surgeons are entitled to respond to advertisements  for  recruitment of  Veterinary Surgeons and shall  not  insist  for  the  candidates  to  be  registered  as  Veterinary Surgeons of the State of Uttarakhand.”

4. We are of the view that the issue before the High Court was quite  

serious and merited consideration in greater detail.  We are unable to sustain  

the very brief order passed by the High Court on this serious issue.  We,  

accordingly, set aside the order and remit the matter to the High Court to  

hear  the  parties  afresh  and  to  pass  appropriate  orders  after  taking  into  

2

Page 3

consideration  not  only  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  but  also  the  

relevant statutory provisions.   

5. Needless to say that since the order of the High Court is set aside, it  

will  be  open  to  the  State  Public  Service  Commission  to  adhere  to  the  

previous terms as long as the High Court does not take a contrary view in  

the matter.   

6. In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.  No  

order as to costs.    

……………………………...J. (Aftab Alam)

……………………………...J. (H.L. Gokhale)

New Delhi April 2, 2013  

3