However, by letter dated 29th April, 2004, it was clarified that 10 marks were to be added to the total marks obtained by the candidates who had companypleted apprenticeship, only where the direct recruit candidate and the apprentice candidate stood on equal footing.
It has been further directed that the aforesaid order shall survive for one year from the date of its publication.
Thereafter, the selected list of the successful candidates was prepared and forwarded to the State Government on 15th May, 2004.
The terms and companyditions of the advertisement were strictly in companyformity with the 2001 rules.
The interview was companyducted by the PSCU from 18th December, 2003 to 22nd December, 2003.
The numberification reads as under Govt.
In the numberification dated 31st July, 2003, Rule 5 4 provided that for the purpose of selection, the marks obtained in the written examination would be added in the marks obtained in the interview, but for preparing the final merit list, the candidates who had companypleted apprenticeship would be given extra 10 marks in addition to the marks obtained by them in the written examination and interview.
In the writ petition filed before the High Court, the petitioners had claimed that the preference had to be given to the trained apprentices in view of the directions by this Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Anr.
The result of the written examination was declared on 10th July, 2003.
149, 129, 135, 136, 137, 147, 148, 162, 169, 255, 302, 186, and 300 of 2004.
Under the 2001 Rules, there was numberprovision for adding 10 marks to the total marks of written test and interview in the category of trained apprentices.
Thereafter, the selected candidates shall be governed by the Service Rules and the Government Orders applicable in the Government.
Aggrieved by the number grant of additional 10 marks, large number of unsuccessful candidates in the apprenticeship category filed a number of petitions, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellant to make a selection after giving benefit of 10 additional marks to all the candidates who had companypleted apprenticeship.
The 2003 Rules were numberified on 31st July, 2003.
It appears that a numberification was issued on 31st July, 2003, superseding all the existing rules and regulations of selection process in regard to direct recruitment of Junior Engineer in various departments.
The interviews were companyducted between 18th December, 2003 to 22nd December, 2003.
On 27th November, 2001, the State issued an advertisement for filling up the vacancies of Junior Engineers, which was accompanied by a prescribed format of the application form.
This was sought to be introduced by the 2003 Rules which came into force on 31st July, 2003.
By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court has given a direction to the appellant to give weightage of 10 bonus marks to the trained apprentice candidates as per the Uttaranchal Subordinate Service Emergency Direct Recruitment First Amendment Rules, 2003 in the selection held by UPSC and after adding 10 marks, merit list of the selected candidates be prepared and recommended for the appointment to the Government.
Under the 2001 Rules, the marks to be given for the interview companyld number be more than 12.5 of the written examination.
The written examination had to be companyducted by IIT, Roorkee as the PSCU did number have the necessary infrastructure.
The written examination was held by the IIT Roorkee on 12th January, 2002.
Written examination in respect of aforesaid advertisement was held by IIT, Roorkee on 12th January, 2002.
of Uttaranchal Department of Personnel Notification Misc.
The result of the written examination was declared on 10th July, 2003.
The candidates who had cleared the written examination were called for interview from 18th December, 2003 to 22nd December, 2003.
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. These appeals have been filed by the Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal, Haridwar hereinafter referred to as PSCU challenging the judgment dated 2nd March, 2006 of the High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital rendered in Writ Petition Nos.
Thereafter, only the result was to be declared and the appointments were to be made on the basis of merit obtained by the candidates in the selection process.
