Neha Sharma & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Since common questions of law and fact are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment.

Petitioners participated in a selection for appointment as Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, pursuant to separate advertisements issued by District Education Officer (Elementary) of all 13 districts within State of Uttarakhand. The selection was to be made based on score of quality point marks of candidates, which were to be awarded to them based on their scholastic performance. It is worthwhile to mention here that selection was made separately in each of the 13 districts. Petitioners were called for counseling/document verification, which was held on 12.1.2026. Grievance raised by the petitioners in these writ petitions is that counseling/document verification was held in all 13 districts on the same day, therefore they could appear for counseling/document verification only in one district and thus they missed out opportunity of participating in the counseling/document verification in other 12 districts.

Petitioners further contend that candidates were called for counseling/document verification without there being a merit list. It was thus contended that merit list was not prepared, as is required under Rule 17 of the applicable service rules, therefore selection process is flawed.

State Counsel was given time to get instructions on the said aspect. State Counsel, on instructions, submits that separate merit list was prepared by the competent authority in each of 13 districts; he further submits that all candidates, whose name figure in the merit list, were called for counseling/document verification. He further submits that petitioners could have any grievance only if a candidate with lower score of marks than the petitioners is selected and appointed. He submits that petitioners themselves are to be blamed for participating in the counseling/document verification only in one district and for not participating in other districts, where they had a better chance of appointment. He submits that claim of the petitioners for appointment can be considered only in the district where they appeared for counseling/document verification and if any of the petitioners has grievance that anyone with lower score of marks was offered appointment in that district, then petitioners are at liberty to make representation.

This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since petitioners had applied separately for different districts, therefore, they cannot insist that counseling/document verification has to be done on different dates. Moreover, they could have approached the competent authority for scheduling counseling/document verification in such a manner that the candidates like petitioners are able to participate in counseling/document verification in all the districts. That is not the case here. Petitioners have approached this Court after counseling/document verification was over. They took a chance by appearing in counseling/document verification in a particular district and if they are not selected in that district because of their lower merit, then petitioners themselves are to be blamed. If anyone with lower merit than petitioners has been appointed in some other district, where petitioner did not appear for counseling/document verification, then also the selection and appointment of such less meritorious candidate cannot be disturbed at this belated stage for the simple reason that the petitioner did not appear for counseling/document verification before the competent authority in respect of that particular district.

Learned State Counsel has produced in Court the merit list prepared by District Education Officer (Elementary) for Nainital, Bageshwar, Pauri and Pithoragarh. Perusal of that list, supplied by State Counsel, indicates that name of candidates, who participated in the selection, has been arranged in order of merit. Thus the ground taken by petitioners for challenging the selection process that merit list was not prepared before calling candidates for counseling/document verification is not supported by materials on record. Thus the relief as claimed cannot be granted.

Petitioners are bound by doctrine of election, as they chose to appear for counseling/document verification in one particular district to the exclusion of other 12 districts, where counseling/document verification was also held on the same day.

Thus there is no scope of interference. Writ petitions are, however, disposed of by permitting such petitioners, who have grievance that anyone with lower merit was offered appointment in the district where such petitioners also participated in counseling/document verification, to make representation to the competent authority. If such representation is made by any of the petitioners, the competent authority shall look into the issues raised and take decision, as per law, within one month from the date of receipt of such representation.

District Education Officer (Elementary) of concerned districts are directed to upload list of successful candidates, who were appointed, along with the marks scored by them in the selection process, in the official website within ten days, to enable the persons aggrieved to question the irregularity, if any, committed in the selection process.

Interim orders stand vacated.