[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
Om Prakash vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others on 17 February, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:1009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2226 of 2023
Om Prakash ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others ... Respondents
Mr. Bhagwat Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand /
respondent nos. 1 to 4.
Mr. Chandramauli Shah, Advocate for respondent no. 5.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
1. In sequel to the order dated 13.02.2026,
Mr. Pankaj Upreti, District Education Officer, Chamoli
is present in Court today.
2. Petitioner as well as respondent no. 5
applied for appointment as Assistant Teacher,
Government Primary School in District Chamoli. Both
of them claimed vertical reservation available to
Economically Weaker Sections of society and they
also claimed horizontal reservation available to
persons with disability. Petitioner's name did not
figure in the list of selected candidates, while
respondent no. 5 was selected and recommended for
appointment. An order of appointment was also
issued in favour of respondent no. 5 on 16.11.2021.
Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached
this Court.
2026:UHC:1009
3. Petitioner contends that since the selection
was to be made as per year of passing B.Ed.
examination and he passed B.Ed. in the year 2009
and his quality point marks were 55.077, while
respondent no. 5 passed B.Ed. examination only in
the year 2010 and his score of quality point marks
was also less, namely 54.94, therefore respondent
no. 5 could not have been recommended for
appointment by ignoring the claim of the petitioner.
4. Learned State Counsel, by referring to
paragraph no. 5 of the counter affidavit, filed on
behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4, submits that as per
Rule 9 (one) of the applicable Rules, as amended in
2019, 15% posts are to be reserved for graduates
with English as main subject and another 15% posts
are to be reserved for graduates with Hindi as main
subject and remaining 70% posts are to be reserved
for graduates in other subjects of humanities. He
further submits that petitioner was having English as
main subject in graduation; while respondent no. 5
was not having English or Hindi as a subject in
graduation, therefore, both of them fell in different
categories, inasmuch as, petitioner's claim was to be
considered against 15% posts reserved for
candidates with English subject; while, claim of
respondent no. 5 was to be considered against 70%
posts, which were reserved for graduates in other
subjects, therefore, there cannot be any comparison
between petitioner and respondent no. 5. He submits
that the aforesaid three categories constitute three
2026:UHC:1009
watertight compartments and candidate with one
qualification cannot be considered for appointment
against posts earmarked for other category. He thus
submits that the premise, on which the writ petition
is founded, is flawed.
5. Learned State Counsel further submits that
both petitioner and respondent no. 5 had claimed
reservation available to Economically Weaker Section
as well as to persons with disabilities; under the 70%
quota reserved for graduate in other subjects of
humanities, one post was available for EWS (PH)
category and name of respondent no. 5 was
recommended for appointment against the said
reserved post; while, in the 15% quota for candidates
with English as main subject in graduation, there was
no vacancy available for EWS (PH) category,
therefore, benefit of reservation was not given to any
candidate belonging to EWS (PH) category. He
further points out that as per Rule 9 (two) of the
Rules, as amended in 2019, a B.Ed. qualification
holder was required to secure minimum 50% marks
in graduation; while, petitioner's score of marks in
graduation was only 40.96%, thus, petitioner was not
eligible for appointment as Assistant Teacher. He
points out that petitioner's name was included in the
selection process in deference to the order passed by
this Court in WPSS No. 574 of 2019.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner, however,
contended that compartmentalisation of posts, based
on subjects provided in Rule 9 (one) of the Rules, is
2026:UHC:1009
only in respect of candidates with D.El.Ed.
qualification, which is not applicable for B.Ed.
qualification holders, therefore, according to him,
petitioner had a better claim for appointment by
virtue of his passing B.Ed. in earlier year.
7. When asked to show any provision in the
applicable Rules, which may indicate that
compartmentalisation of posts, based on language/
subjects studied in graduation will not apply to B.Ed.
qualification holders, learned counsel for the
petitioner could not show any provision.
8. This Court do not find any reason to
interfere with the selection and appointment of
respondent no. 5, who was appointed against 70%
posts reserved for graduates in other subjects of
humanities; while, petitioner was to be considered
against 15% posts reserved for graduates with
English as main subjects.
9. It is the specific case of the respondents
that petitioner's name figures much below the last
candidate selected against 15% posts reserved for
candidates with English as main subject in
graduation; while, respondent no. 5 was appointed
against 70% posts reserved for graduates in other
subjects of humanities, as per his merit.
10. Even otherwise also, petitioner's score of
marks in graduation was less than 50%, therefore, he
is not eligible in view of provision contained in Rule 9
(two) of the applicable Rules, as amended in 2019.
2026:UHC:1009
On the other hand, respondent no. 5 met all
conditions of eligibility and his score of marks in the
selection was sufficient to secure appointment,
therefore, selection and appointment of respondent
no. 5 cannot be faulted.
11. Thus, there is no merit in the challenge
thrown by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ
petition fails and is dismissed.
12. Personal presence of District Education
Officer, Chamoli is dispensed with.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
17.02.2026
Navin
NAVEEN
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF
2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006da82a1
CHANDRA
31bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA875643AF56D
653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA
Date: 2026.02.20 10:11:04 +05'30'
