Abha Rani vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 1153 UK

Uttarakhand High Court

Abha Rani vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 9 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

                                             2018:UHC:11065-DB



    HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
                      NAINITAL
         Special Appeal No. 339 of 2018

Abha Rani                                     ...Appellant

                         Versus

State of Uttarakhand & Others             ... Respondents

  Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate, for the appellant.
  Mr. K.N. Joshi, Deputy AG, for the State/respondents.

                    JUDGMENT

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) This intra-Court appeal has been filed challenging the judgment dated 9.4.2018, passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No. 297 of 2017. Relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced below:

"5. Respondent no. 2 has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, respondent no. 2 has given details of posts in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit. As per posts detail, there are 389 (Assistant Teacher) + 13 (Urdu Teacher) = 402 fresh vacancies and 798 backlog vacancies and out 389 vacancies, 54 posts are reserved for OBC category candidates, which is per 14% quota and they have filled up all the vacancies under OBC quota.

6. It is settled position of law that quota, prescribed as per Government Orders, will be applicable on the new vacancies and it will not be applicable on the backlog vacancies. Backlog vacancies will be filled up from their respective quota and in case of non availability of candidates, it will carry forward to the next calendar year vacancy. Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that

2018:UHC:11065-DB respondents have not filled up vacancies under OBC quota by giving prescribed quota has no force.

7. So far as the second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents have not made classification of the vacancies in the advertisement is concerned, in my opinion, advertisement published by the respondents is abridged one and in the advertisement itself it is mentioned that for details visit to the website. Even otherwise, respondent no. 2 has given the details of vacancies in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and in reply whereof petitioner has said nothing. So this argument also has no force.

8. No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed."

2. It is not in dispute that appellant responded to the advertisement issued by Director, Elementary Education on 17.02.2016, whereby applications were invited for appointment against 625 vacancies on the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School, within the State. In the selection, appellant claimed reservation available to Other Backward Classes. Since, she was not selected for appointment, therefore, she filed WPSS No. 297 of 2017, seeing the following reliefs:-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing/amending the select list dated 27.03.2016 (i.e. Annexure no.

5), and subsequent waiting list dated 09.02.2017 (i.e. Annexure no. 6), to the extent that the total number of posts of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, allotted to the OBC category, are in accordance with the reservation policy of the State Government.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to give appointment to

2018:UHC:11065-DB such number of OBC candidates as is required under the reservation policy of the State Government, and amend the select list dated 27.03.2016 (i.e. Annexure no. 5), and subsequent waiting list dated 09.02.2017 (i.e. Annexure no. 6), to the extent that the total number of posts of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, allotted in the OBC category, are in accordance with the reservation policy of the State Government;

iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner against the posts which ought to have been reserved for the OBC category candidates, in the present selection process;"

3. Perusal of the advertisement reveals that selection for appointment was to be made on the basis of seniority of passing B.Ed. examination and in case, two or more candidates passed B.Ed. examination in the same year, then their quality point marks were to be taken into account.

4. As per the stand taken in the counter affidavit, filed before writ court, it is revealed that the appellant was unsuccessful in the selection because of lower quality point marks. It is stated that although the last selected candidate, against vacancies reserved for Other Backward Classes, also passed B.Ed. examination in the same year as the appellant, i.e. 2007; however, score of quality point marks of such last selected candidate was 63.62917, while that of the appellant was 58.6049.

5. Learned State Counsel, thus, submits that appellant herself is to be blamed for her non-selection, as her quality points marks was less than the last selected candidate in OBC category.

2018:UHC:11065-DB

6. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. In a merit based selection, a candidate with less quality point marks, cannot have any grievance against his non-selection, if his score of mark is less than that of the last selected candidate.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that number of vacancies was increased to 1200, therefore, appellant was entitled to reservation to the extent of 14 per cent of 1200 vacancies. However, reservation given to Other Backward Classes was not, as per the reservation policy, applicable in the State.

8. Learned State Counsel in reply submits that the vacancies which were added subsequently, which resulted in increase of number of vacancies to 1200, were backlog vacancies and since reservation for the Other Backward Classes, as per the Government Reservation Policy of the State, were fulfilled, therefore, the appellant had no legally enforceable right to claim 14 per cent of 1200 vacancies and learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant.

9. We find substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment which may warrant interference by this Court. We, accordingly, dismiss the special appeal.

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

9.6.2025 Pr

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF

PRABODH KUMAR UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462 503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C 67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2025.06.10 16:41:37 +05'30'

2018:UHC:11065-DB