Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/122/2026 on 7 July, 2026
UKHC010064482026
2026:UHC:5559-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Special Appeal No.122 of 2026
7th July, 2026
Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board
-----Appellant
Versus
Nisha Ramola Alias Nisha Khetrapal and Others
----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.123 of 2026
Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board and
Another
-----Appellants
Versus
Neha Manola and Others
----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.125 of 2026
Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board
-----Appellant
Versus
Irene Roberts and Others ----Respondents
With
Special Appeal No.204 of 2026
Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board
-----Appellant
Versus
Dhilpe Sheetal Mahesh and Others
----Respondents
1
UKHC010064482026
2026:UHC:5559-DB
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Gaurav Nagpal and Mr. Rakshit Srivastava, learned counsel
holding brief of Mr. Ramji Shrivastava, learned counsel for the
appellants.
Mr. Ravindra Singh Bisht, Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Mr. Vinay Kumar,
and Mr. Ayush Gaur, learned counsel for respondent no.1.
Mr. M.S. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Mr. Atul Bahuguna and Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for
respondent no.4.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT :
(per Mr. Subhash Upadhyay J.)
1. Since common question of facts and law are
involved in this bunch of Special Appeals, as such, the
same are being heard and decided together by this
common judgment.
2. Special Appeal Nos.122 of 2026, 123 of 2026
and 125 of 2026 are directed against the order dated
06.11.2025 whereby the bunch of three writ petitions
WPSS No.2331 of 2024, WPSS No.2249 of 2024 and
WPSS No.2283 of 2024 were decided. Special Appeal
No.204 of 2026 is directed against the order dated
24.03.2026 whereby WPSS No.2251 of 2024 was
decided in terms of the judgment and order dated
06.11.2025 passed in WPSS No.2331 of 2024 and
connected matters on the consensus given by the
appellant that the controversy was covered by the order
dated 06.11.2025.
3. The writ petitions were filed by the candidates
who had applied to the post of Nursing Officers in
2
UKHC010064482026
2026:UHC:5559-DB
pursuance to an advertisement issued on 11.03.2024 by
the appellant / Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection
Board. The writ petitions were filed assailing the decision
of the appellant whereby the candidature of the writ
petitioners was rejected on the ground that they were
not having valid registration with the Uttarakhand
Nurises and Midwives Council till the last date of
submission of application form i.e. till 01.04.2024.
4. The writ petitioners contended that they were
registered with the Nurses and Midwives Council of other
States other than the Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives
Council and much prior to the last date of submission of
application form they had requested for transfer of their
registration to the Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives
Council.
5. Admittedly, the registration certificates of the
petitioners were transferred to the Uttarakhand Nursing
and Midwives Council later on but after the last date of
submission of application form i.e. 01.04.2024. The
question, which arose before the writ court, was that as
to whether the candidature of the writ petitioners could
be rejected on the ground that they were not registered
with the Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives Council.
3
UKHC010064482026
2026:UHC:5559-DB
6. The learned Single Judge considered the said
aspect and in view of the judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Saroj and
Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
(2022) 17 SCC 477 held that the issue involved in the
writ petition was squarely covered by the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court and the decision of the
appellants in rejecting the candidature of the writ
petitioners was found to be unsustainable.
7. The learned Single Judge considered the facts
of WPSS No.2331 of 2024 and held as hereunder:
“(3) Uttarakhand Medical Service Selection Board
issued an advertisement on 11.3.2024, inviting
applications against 1455 vacancies on the post of
Nursing Officer in different government medical
colleges/State Cancer Institute. Clause 6 of the said
advertisement required that every candidate must be
registered with Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives
Council on the last date of submission of application.
Petitioner responded to the advertisement, however
her candidature was rejected only on the ground that
she was not registered with Uttarakhand Nurses and
Midwives Council on the last of submission of
application i.e. 1.4.2024.
(4) Petitioner was registered with Haryana Nurses and
Midwives Council on 2.8.2013 and she applied for
transfer of her registration to Uttarakhand Nurses and
Midwives Council on 6.2.2024; Uttarakhand Nurses
and Midwives Council sent a letter to Indian Nursing
Council on 12.3.2024 and also sought verification
report from Haryana Nurses and Midwives Council on
7.6.2024, however the fact remains that petitioner’s
registration was not transferred from Haryana Nurses
and Midwives Council to Uttarakhand Nurses and
Midwives Council till the last date of submission of
application.
(5) It is not in dispute that registration of the
petitioner was ultimately transferred from Haryana
Nurses and Midwives Council and her name came to
4
UKHC010064482026
2026:UHC:5559-DB
be registered with Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives
Council on 4.7.2024. Now, the sole question which
falls for consideration before this Court is whether
petitioner’s application for appointment as Nursing
Officer can be rejected on the ground that her name
was not registered with Uttarakhand Nurses and
Midwives Council on the last date of submission of
application?
(6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon a
judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Laxmi Saroj v. State of U.P., reported as
(2022) 17 SCC 477. In the said judgment, while
dealing with similar facts, Hon’ble Supreme Court held
as under:
“11. Thus, because of the late issuance of the
registration by the U.P. Council, the appellants
could not produce the U.P. Council registration
either on the last date of the application and/or
at the time of verification of documents and
therefore, they were held ineligible.
12. From the aforesaid, it can be seen that as
such, there was no fault on the part of the
appellants in not producing the U.P. Council
registration either at the time of submitting the
application forms or even at the time of
verification of the documents. As such, all the
appellants except one had applied for U.P.
Council registration before the date of
advertisement i.e. 15-12-2021. Therefore, for no
fault(s) of theirs, the appellants could not have
been made to suffer.
13. The issue involved is directly covered by the
decision of this Court in Narender Singh v. State
of Haryana [Narender Singh v. State of Haryana,
(2022) 3 SCC 286 : (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 537] .
In the said decision, it is observed and held by
this Court that once it was found that there was
no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant
and/or there was no fault of the
appellant/applicant in not producing the NOC at
the relevant time, he cannot be punished for the
same.
14. When the aforesaid decision was pressed
into service before the High Court on behalf of
the appellants, the High Court has not followed
the same by observing that the directions issued
by this Court in Narender Singh [Narender Singh
v. State of Haryana, (2022) 3 SCC 286 : (2022)
1 SCC (L&S) 537] , were in exercise of powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution of India.
The aforesaid is a misreading and/or
misinterpreting of the judgment of this Court.
5
UKHC010064482026
2026:UHC:5559-DB
This Court has specifically laid down the law that
if it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the
part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for
no fault attributable to him. However, as in that
case, another candidate/employee was already
appointed, this Court had protected his service
also while exercising the powers under Article
142 of the Constitution of India. Therefore,
exercise of the powers under Article 142 of the
Constitution of India was for protecting the
service of another employee, Respondent 4 in
that case. The High Court has as such, misread
the judgment of this Court.”
(7) Since issue involved in these writ petitions is no
longer res integra, therefore, this Court has no
hesitation in holding that rejection of candidature of
petitioners, only on the ground that they were not
registered with Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives
Council on the last date of submission of application, is
unsustainable. Writ petitions are, therefore, allowed.
Order dated 18.11.2024, passed by the selecting body
rejecting petitioners candidature, is set aside qua the
petitioners. Respondents are directed to consider the
claim of petitioners for appointment as per applicable
selection criteria and also declare the result.”
8. Learned counsel for the appellants placed
reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the
case of Himanchal Pradesh State Electricity Board
Ltd. and Another Vs. Dharminder Singh 2022 SCC
Online SC 1855 to contend that the candidate should
possess the requisite qualification on the last date of
submission of application form and, as the writ
petitioners were registered with the Uttarakhand Nurses
and Midwives Council subsequent to the last date of
submission of application form, as such, their
candidature was rightly rejected by the appellants.
9. We have perused the judgment passed in the
case of Himanchal Pradesh State Electricity Board
6
UKHC010064482026
2026:UHC:5559-DB
Ltd.(supra), however, the facts of the said case are
different and not applicable in the controversy involved
herein.
10. In the aforesaid case, the candidate therein
was not possessing the requisite technical qualification
on the last date of submission of application form
whereas in the case in hand the writ petitioners were
possessing the requisite qualification as they were
already registered with the Nurses and Midwives Council
and their registration was subsequently transferred to
the Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives Council. It is also
admitted fact that the process of transfer was initiated
much prior to the last date of submission of application
form and the name of the writ petitioners were
ultimately transferred and were registered with the
Uttarakhand Nurses and Midwives Council.
11. Thus, the facts of the present case are
identical to the case of Laxmi Saroj (supra) wherein
the Hon’ble Apex Court while considering the judgment
in the case of Narendra Singh Vs. State of Haryana
(2022) 3 SCC 286 held that if it is found that there is
no lapse/ delay, on the part of the applicant, he cannot
be punished for no fault attributable to him.
7
UKHC010064482026
2026:UHC:5559-DB
12. The learned Single Judge had considered the
entire facts in detail and we are in agreement with the
view taken by the learned Single Judge that the case of
the writ petitioners was squarely covered by the decision
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Saroj
(supra).
13. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. The special appeals fail and
the same are, accordingly, dismissed.
14. Pending applications, if any, also stand
disposed of.
(MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C. J.)
(SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.)
Dated:07.07.2026
SS
8
