HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1336 of 2025 (S/S) Manju Prakash ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand ….….Respondent Present:- Mr. Aakib Ahmed, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Chandra Shekhar Joshi, Brief Holder for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) The challenge in this petition is made to the select list dated 20.02.2024, by which the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari, was appointed as a teacher in the respondent no.4/Arya Kanya Inter College, Roorkee, District Haridwar (“the college”), and the petitioner is at serial no.1 in the wait list. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the college is run by management. On 02.03.2021, the college issued an advertisement to invite applications for women candidates for the post of Lecturers as well as Assistant Teachers. Seven candidates were shortlisted, in which the petitioner was at serial no.2. Thereafter, interview was conducted, but despite the petitioner being higher in merits, she has been denied appointment and the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari, has been offered appointment. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the seven candidates were shortlisted, the petitioner was at serial no.2. The candidate at serial no.1 did not participate in the interview, but, thereafter, in interview, the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari, obtained higher marks, because the interviewer was biased. Therefore, he submits that the selection list may be quashed. It is also argued that the entire selection process has not been completed within three 2 months, as mandated by Rule 10(dd) of the Uttarakhand School Education Regulations, 2009 (“Regulations 2009”). 5. This argument has less merit for acceptance. The final chart, after interview, is at Annexure No.4 to the writ petition. It records that after interview, the petitioner was not higher in merits than the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari. In fact, the respondent no.5, Jyoti Kumari, had obtained 69.81 marks and the petitioner had obtained 69.37 marks. Based on mere statement that the interview was biased, the select list may not be quashed. 6. Insofar as non compliance of Rule 10(dd) of the Regulations 2009 is concerned, it has less merits for acceptance. In the case of Nitin Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, (2022) 07 UK CK 0138, this Court has held that Regulation 10(dd) of the Regulations 2009, is merely directory in nature. In the case of Nitin (supra), the Division Bench of this Court held that “Rule 10(dd) of Regulations 2009 can only be read as directory, as cancellation of the advertisement, and issuance of a fresh advertisement, merely because there is some delay in the process of filling up the vacancies advertised, would defeat the whole purpose of inviting applications through advertisement to fill up the post, which is lying vacant, without any delay. The possibility of the incumbent officiating officer contriving to delay the selection process of the post, which is advertised – to perpetuate his tenure, also cannot be ruled out.” 7. The final selection has been done in the month of February, 2024. It is more than 18 months after the petitioner is before the Court. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 3 8. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 12.08.2025 Ravi Bisht