Uttarakhand High Court
Manju Prakash vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 August, 2025
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition No. 1336 of 2025 (S/S)
Manju Prakash ........Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand ........Respondent
Present:-
Mr. Aakib Ahmed, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. Chandra Shekhar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
The challenge in this petition is made to the select list
dated 20.02.2024, by which the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari, was
appointed as a teacher in the respondent no.4/Arya Kanya Inter
College, Roorkee, District Haridwar ("the college"), and the petitioner is
at serial no.1 in the wait list.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the college is run by
management. On 02.03.2021, the college issued an advertisement to
invite applications for women candidates for the post of Lecturers as
well as Assistant Teachers. Seven candidates were shortlisted, in
which the petitioner was at serial no.2. Thereafter, interview was
conducted, but despite the petitioner being higher in merits, she has
been denied appointment and the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari, has
been offered appointment.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the
seven candidates were shortlisted, the petitioner was at serial no.2.
The candidate at serial no.1 did not participate in the interview, but,
thereafter, in interview, the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari, obtained
higher marks, because the interviewer was biased. Therefore, he
submits that the selection list may be quashed. It is also argued that
the entire selection process has not been completed within three
months, as mandated by Rule 10(dd) of the Uttarakhand School
Education Regulations, 2009 ("Regulations 2009").
5. This argument has less merit for acceptance. The final
chart, after interview, is at Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. It
records that after interview, the petitioner was not higher in merits
than the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari. In fact, the respondent no.5,
Jyoti Kumari, had obtained 69.81 marks and the petitioner had
obtained 69.37 marks. Based on mere statement that the interview
was biased, the select list may not be quashed.
6. Insofar as non compliance of Rule 10(dd) of the
Regulations 2009 is concerned, it has less merits for acceptance. In
the case of Nitin Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2022) 07 UK
CK 0138, this Court has held that Regulation 10(dd) of the Regulations
2009, is merely directory in nature. In the case of Nitin (supra), the
Division Bench of this Court held that "Rule 10(dd) of Regulations
2009 can only be read as directory, as cancellation of the
advertisement, and issuance of a fresh advertisement, merely
because there is some delay in the process of filling up the
vacancies advertised, would defeat the whole purpose of inviting
applications through advertisement to fill up the post, which is
lying vacant, without any delay. The possibility of the incumbent
officiating officer contriving to delay the selection process of the
post, which is advertised - to perpetuate his tenure, also cannot
be ruled out."
7. The final selection has been done in the month of
February, 2024. It is more than 18 months after the petitioner is
before the Court. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to
make any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition
deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.
8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine.
(Ravindra Maithani, J)
12.08.2025
Ravi Bisht
