Uttarakhand High Court

SPA/253/2015 on 2 June, 2025

Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari

              Office Notes,
             reports, orders
             or proceedings
SL.
      Date    or directions                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
             and Registrar's
                order with
               Signatures
                               SPA No. 253 of 2015
                               Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon'ble Subhash Upadhyay, J.

Mr. Nitin Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.

2. Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

3. This intra court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 01.12.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1423 of 2013. By the said judgment, the writ petition filed by appellant challenging the result published by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission and also seeking a direction to declare the appellant selected against a vacancy reserved for physically disabled persons, was dismissed. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:-

"3. As far as consideration of petitioner's candidature, as a reserved category candidate, is concerned one post which was reserved for physically challenged person in General category has not been filled and the same was being carry forward. Even here the claim of the petitioner in the Irrigation Department cannot be considered though he is a physically challenged person as he failed to get minimum 45% marks i.e. 180 marks, whereas the petitioner obtained 150 marks. Therefore, even for the reserve category of physically challenged quota, candidature of the petitioner could not be considered.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs."

4. It is not in dispute that appellant claimed benefit of reservation available to a physically disabled person for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical & Mechanical).

5. In the selection, which was held by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, appellant could not score 45% marks, which was fixed as benchmark for appointment against a vacancy reserved for disabled persons. On this score alone, appellant's name was not recommended for appointment, even though he was the only candidate who claimed reservation available for disabled persons.

6. Law is well settled that when a benchmark/cut off mark is fixed by the appointing authority / selecting body, then a candidate, who is not able to score marks equal to benchmark, is not entitled to be recommended for appointment, even though vacancy remains unfilled. Thus, learned Single Judge was justified in not interfering in the matter.

7. We do not find any reason to disturb the judgment rendered by learned Single Judge.

8. The Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

(Subhash Upadhyay, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 02.06.2025 Navin