SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1416

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
VIMLESH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSS 863 / 2026



##PAGE1##

2026:UHC:2282 Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings

S N L o . .

Date or directions COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS and Registrar’s order with Signatures

WPSS/ 863/ 2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kum ar Tiw ari, J

Mr. Vinay Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel, for the State.

2. Petitioner participated in a selection for the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School in District Almora and she claimed benefit of reservation available to Other Backward Classes. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had staked claim for appointment on a post in “other than Science subjects”. Grievance raised by the petitioner in this writ petition is that even though she scored 70.61 quality point marks in the selection, yet she has not

been recommended for appointment.

3. Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions in the matter. Based on written instructions, received from the O/o District Education Officer, Almora, Mr. S.S. Chaudhary submits that petitioner belongs to OBC category and the last candidate, who was recommended for appointment in “other than Science subjects” in the said category, scored 76.008 quality point marks. Thus learned State Counsel submits that since petitioner is much below in merit, therefore, she does not have any valid claim for selection/appointment. Copy of the written instructions produced in the Court by learned State Counsel is taken on

record.

##PAGE2##

2026:UHC:2282

4. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since petitioner’s quality point marks is much below than the last candidate recommended for appointment in “other than Science subjects” in OBC category, therefore, petitioner does not have any vested right to be recommended for appointment. Writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of by taking the submission made

by learned State Counsel on record.

(Manoj Kumar Tiw ari, J)

1.4.2026 Pr

P K R U A M B A O R DH DDU2dsADe.45 TiN a 5r g 68ti :4ae 2C Atc l: a 52N = 6 R 2 l 00 7 IA u0 yN 3= Fm K , s, 3 3 6 Hi p o bC g a . Ao = 0 0e9 n 4 sNH r8 1 e t=. 2D 0 Id a G 0a 5l 2 ,C b D H0 7 1 o y BC 0 C da E P 1: O9e 25 R =5U 3 A a : 2,E RB f c68 T 0 O n 93D O + D = 1080P FH Ca 5 1 R U A K 9 ' ,A3 T 6s U 5 B0 t M = 'O A E9U A D1 R7T6 R 4A HB3 K AK9aH U4Rf8A 0AM N E2KAF D1HDR c, A 5o FN08 u6D0 = 6, H 2A IfG C6He aC 1 O A4U B R 56T 81 aOf03F 5a 2eDFb619C8

##PAGE3##

2026:UHC:2282

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top