Vijay Kumar Sagar v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr.

Present : Mr. D.P. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner appeared video conferencing. Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State/respondent no.1. Ms. Monika Pant, Advocate for respondent no.2. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge is made to the result declared by the National Institute for the Empowerment of Persons with Visual Disabilities (Divyangjan) (“NIEPVD”) .

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is the case of the petitioner that in the year 2023, the NIEPVD published an advertisement inviting applications for various posts. The petitioner applied for the post of “O & M Instructor” in SC single seat within time. But, once result was declared, he has not been selected. He is waitlisted candidate and one Km. Alpana Mahor has been selected. On 02.04.2025, when the matter was taken up, the matter was adjourned for today. 2

Today, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that according to the petitioner, the examination was not fair and how the process have undergone, it is transparent. He admits that some Written Examination was also conducted by the respondent no.2 while conducting the process.

Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 would submit that the petitioner has secured 24 marks out of 100 and this information was given to the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005. The selected candidate has secured more marks.

Nothing has been revealed by the petitioner, which may require any indulgence or any further proceedings in the matter. Therefore, there is no reason to entertain the instant petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself.