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) 1981

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J
DINESH CHANDRA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPSS/1384/2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Devansh Dhiman
For the Respondents: K.N. Joshi, Pankaj Miglani

A writ petition challenging a recruitment advertisement based on speculative apprehension regarding the future application of reservation policies is premature and not maintainable. Recruitment authorities are not mandated to disclose internal vacancy distribution across vertical categories within the initial public notice.

Headnote:(A) Recruitment - Public services - Benchmark disability - Reservation entitlement - Distribution of reserved vacancies across vertical categories - Whether mandatory under law - Recruitment authority is not required to indicate the distribution of vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities among different vertical categories in the recruitment advertisement. (Para 8)

(B) Writ jurisdiction - Maintainability - Challenge to advertisement - Prematurity - A writ petition challenging a recruitment advertisement cannot be maintained solely based on the apprehension that the reservation policy might be violated by authorities during the appointment process. (Para 13)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a candidate with a benchmark disability, challenged a recruitment advertisement for teaching positions, contending that the absence of a specific distribution of reserved vacancies for disabled persons across vertical categories would lead to an inequitable allocation of seats, potentially harming candidates from a general category.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the required quantum of vacancies for persons with disabilities was earmarked, and there is no legal necessity to pre-determine the distribution of such seats among vertical categories in an advertisement. Mere apprehension of future inequity in the application of reservation policies does not constitute a valid cause of action for a legal challenge.

Issues: The main issues were whether a recruitment advertisement is invalid for failing to specify the distribution of disability-reserved vacancies across vertical categories and whether a challenge based on speculation of future policy misapplication is maintainable.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that in the absence of a specific legal requirement to disclose internal roster distribution in recruitment notices, the omission does not constitute an infirmity. Legal action must be grounded in actual prejudice rather than speculative apprehension, rendering the initial challenge premature.

Result: Petition disposed of with the petitioner granted liberty to file a representation with the relevant appointment authority for redressal of his concerns.

Table of Content
1. case context and petitioner eligibility for lecturer post. (Para 2)
2. petitioner's apprehension regarding reservation roster interpretation. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. state submission on compliance with disability act and vacancy allocation. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9)
4. writ petitions based on premature apprehensions are not maintainable. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13)
5. procedural disposal via representation to the relevant authority. (Para 14)

2. Petitioner is a person with benchmark disability. He is challenging advertisement dated 30.12.2025 issued by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer. By said advertisement, 725 vacancies on the post of Lecturer in different subjects were advertised. Petitioner is eligible for the post of Hindi and Sanskrit for which 78 and 62 vacancies respectively have been advertised.

3. Petitioner contends that even though three vacancies were reserved for persons with disability in Hindu subject and two vacancies were reserved for such persons in Sanskrit subject; however, distribution of such vacancy amongst different vertical categories was not indicated in the advertisement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner belongs to General Category and he apprehend that all the vacancies which are reserved for persons with disability in Hindi and Sanskrit subject would be eaten away by persons belonging to SC or ST category.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the roster issued by State Government vide G.O. dated 22.05.2020.

6. Learned State Counsel, per contra submits that as per provisions of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2017 , persons with benchmark disability are entitled to reservation to the extent of 4% in public services.

7. He submits that required number of vacancies has been reserved for persons with disability in the selection in question and grievance raised by petitioner is unfounded.

8. He further submits that in the roster issued by State Government vide G.O. dated 22.05.2020, the State Government or the Selecting Body is not expected to indicate distribution of vacancies reserved for persons with disability, amongst different vertical category.

9. He submits that persons with disability who are selected will be allotted vacancy by the selecting body depending upon their merit and other laid down criteria.

10. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel.

11. There is no infirmity in impugned advertisement as sufficient number of vacancies has been earmarked for persons with disabilities in Hindi and Sanskrit subject.

12. Petitioner apprehends that sufficient number of vacancies would not be available to general category candidates and all the vacancies reserved for persons with disabilities would be filled by appointing persons belonging to SC category.

13. The apprehension expressed by petitioner is unfounded and there is no cause of action available to the petitioner. A writ petition challenging advertisement would not be maintainable if it is based only on the apprehension that the reservation roster/policy may be violated by the authorities while making appointment. Thus, the writ petition is premature.

14. However, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation highlighting the apprehension expressed by him. If he makes such representation to the Secretary, Appointment and Personnel within two weeks, the Secretary concerned shall take decision thereupon, as per law, within ten weeks thereafter.

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