NEERAJ BHATT vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

UKHC010006372022

2026:UHC:10110-DB

Office Notes,
reports,
orders or
proceedings
or directions
and
Registrar’s
order with
Signatures
SL.
Date
No.
COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

SPA/5/2022


Neeraj Bhatt --Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others --Respondents

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.
Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate, for the
petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Parihar, Additional CSC, for
the State.
Mr. Himansh Aswal, Advocate, i/b Mr.
Navnish Negi, Advocate for the respondent no. 2
and 3.
Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. C.S. Dalakoti, Advocate for the
respondent no. 4.

(2) This intra-court appeal is directed
against the judgment and order dated
1.12.2021, passed by learned Single Judge in
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 576 of 2018. By the said
judgment, challenge thrown by the appellant to
rejection of his candidature by the selecting
body was repelled. Relevant extract of the said
judgment is reproduced below:
9. Before venturing to deal with the further
“
arguments extended by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, I am of the view, that the logic assigned by
the Techno Global University, in its communication dated
17th October 2016, wherein a conclusion has been
arrived at, that aforesaid discipline of subjects since
constitutes to be the part of syllabus of the diploma of
Sanitary Inspector possessed by the petitioner, would be
treated as to be equivalent, that logic or inference by the
Institution itself will not itself grant any equivalence to
the diploma held by the petitioner until and unless the
same is recognised by a Body, which is legally
recognised under law to confer the validity of the

UKHC010006372022

2026:UHC:10110-DB

diploma to satisfy the ingredients or the qualification
which was required as per the terms of the
advertisement.
10. Secondly, it has been argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the
communication made by the University Grants
Commission, to the Registrar, Techno Global University
on 1st April 2009, that in itself will lead to an inference
that the Institution from where the petitioner had
procured the diploma is a recognized Institute.
11. This Court is not in agreement with the
tenacity of the argument of the learned counsel for the
petitioner for the reason being that if the said
communication dated 1st April 2019, as issued by the
Joint Secretary, University Grants Commission, is taken
into consideration, in fact, it had nothing to do with
regard to certifying the diploma or granting it equivalent
recognition, rather as held by the petitioner as to be
recognised and satisfying the eligibility criteria of the
advertisement. Rather the said permission of 1st April
2009, was confined to only to the establishment of the
Institution, itself and the parameter which was required
to be satisfied for the purposes of providing the
infrastructure of the institution, as per the norms settled
by the University Grants Commission. It had no
correlation with regard to the recognition or de-
recognition or non recognition of diploma held by the
petitioner, whether it could be read in consonance to be
a diploma for the purposes of ‘Hygiene’, which was one
of the essential qualifications to be considered for
appointment in pursuance to the advertisement issued
by the respondent on 22nd November 2012. ”

(3) Petitioner applied for the post of
Sanitary Inspector. In the advertisement issued
by the selecting body, the qualification
mentioned was B.Sc. with one year Diploma in
Hygiene and Sanitation from State Health
Institute or any equivalent one year diploma
from an institute recognised by the State
Government. It is not in dispute that appellant
pursued one year diploma from Techno Global
University, Meghalaya, however the diploma
course pursued by the appellant was not
recognised as equivalent to one year Diploma in
Hygiene and Sanitation, awarded by State
Health Institute. For this reason alone, selecting
body found the appellant to be ineligible.

UKHC010006372022

2026:UHC:10110-DB

(4) Since appellant does not meet the
condition of advertisement, therefore, learned
Single Judge was justified in denying relief to the
appellant. View taken by learned Single Judge
cannot be faulted. Thus we do not find any
scope for interference in the matter. We,
however, dispose of the appeal by providing that
if same issue is raised regarding appellant’s
eligibility in future, then the appellant shall be at
liberty to raise claim for referring the matter to
Equivalence Committee.

(5) Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, submits
that his client was appointed as Sanitary
Inspector on 9.3.2023 and he is thereafter
continuously serving as such.




(Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, A.C.J.)

3.11.2026
Pr































PRABODH
KUMAR
Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e6
1af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB5
88052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2026.11.03 19:04:47 +05'30'

UKHC010006372022

2026:UHC:10110-DB