Abha Rani v. Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocat e, for t he

learned counsel for t he pet it ioner .

9. I n view of t he above, I do not find any illegalit y or perv er sit y in t he im pugned order . Accordingly, pet it ion fails and is hereby dism issed.”

2. I t is not in disput e t hat appellant responded t o t he advert isem ent issued by Direct or, Elem ent ary Educat ion on 17.02.2016, whereby applicat ions were invit ed for appoint m ent against 625 vacancies on t he post of Assist ant Teacher in Governm ent Prim ary School, wit hin t he St at e. I n t he select ion, appellant claim ed reservat ion available t o Ot her Backward Classes. Since, she was not select ed for appoint m ent , t herefore, she filed WPSS No. 297 of 2017, seeing t he following reliefs: - “ i) I ssue a writ , order or dir ect ion in t he nat ur e of cer t iorari quashing/ am ending t he select list dat ed 27.03.2016 ( i.e. Annexure no. 5) , and subsequent wait ing list dat ed 09.02.2017 ( i.e. Annex ur e no. 6) , t o t he ext ent t hat t he t ot al Teacher, num ber Governm ent Prim ary School, allot t ed t o t he OBC cat egory , are in accordance wit h t he reservat ion policy of t he St at e Governm ent . of Assist ant post s ii) I ssue a w rit , order or dir ect ion in t he t he respondent aut horit ies t o give appoint m ent t o of m andam us direct ing nat ur e 2 t he ( i.e. Annex ur e such num ber of OBC candidat es as is requir ed t he St at e reser vat ion policy of Governm ent , and am end t he select list dat ed 27.03.2016 subsequent wait ing list dat ed 09.02.2017 ( i.e. Annexure no. 6) , t o t he ext ent t hat t he t ot al Teacher, num ber Governm ent Prim ary School, allot t ed in t he OBC cat egory , are in accordance wit h t he reservat ion policy of t he St at e Governm ent ; of Assist ant post s no. 5) , nat ur e of m andam us iii) I ssue a w rit , order or direct ion in t he t he respondent s t o consider t he candidat ur e of t he pet it ioner against t he post s w hich ought t o hav e been r eserved for t he OBC cat egor y candidat es, in t he pr esent select ion process; ” direct ing

3. Perusal of t he advert isem ent reveals t hat select ion for appoint m ent was t o be m ade on t he basis of seniorit y of passing B.Ed. exam inat ion and in case, t wo or m ore candidat es passed B.Ed. exam inat ion in t he sam e year, t hen t heir qualit y point m arks were t o be t aken int o account .

4. As per t he st and t aken t he count er affidavit , filed before writ court , it is revealed t hat t he appellant was unsuccessful in t he select ion because of lower qualit y point m arks. I t is st at ed t hat alt hough t he last select ed candidat e, against vacancies reserved for Ot her Backward Classes, also passed B.Ed. exam inat ion in t he sam e year as t he appellant , i.e. 2007; however, score of qualit y point m arks of such last select ed candidat e was 63.62917, while t hat of t he appellant was 58.6049.

5. Learned St at e Counsel, t hus, subm it s t hat appellant herself is t o be blam ed for her non- select ion, as her qualit y point s m arks was less t han t he last select ed candidat e in OBC cat egory. 3

6. We find subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel. I n a m erit based select ion, a candidat e wit h less qualit y point m arks, cannot have any grievance against his non- select ion, if his score of m ark is less t han t hat of t he last select ed candidat e.

7. Learned counsel t he appellant t hen subm it t ed t hat num ber of vacancies was increased t o 1200, t herefore, appellant was ent it led t o reservat ion t o t he ext ent of 14 per cent of 1200 vacancies. However, reservat ion given t o Ot her Backward Classes was not , as per t he reservat ion policy, applicable in t he St at e.

8. Learned St at e Counsel in reply subm it s t hat t he vacancies which were added subsequent ly, which result ed in increase of num ber of vacancies t o 1200, were backlog vacancies and since reservat ion for t he Ot her Backward Classes, as per t he Governm ent Reservat ion Policy of t he St at e, were fulfilled, t herefore, t he appellant had no legally enforceable right t o claim 14 per cent of 1200 vacancies and learned Single Judge has right ly rej ect ed t he claim of t he appellant .

9. We find subst ance in t he subm ission m ade by learned St at e Counsel. We do not find any error in t he im pugned j udgm ent which m ay warrant int erference by t his Court . We, accordingly, dism iss t he special appeal. ( Su b h ash Up a d h y ay , J.) ( M a n o j K u m a r Ti w a r i , J.) 9 .6 .2 0 2 5 Pr PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462 503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C 67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR 4 5