HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 916 of 2025 Court No. - 21 HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J. HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J. 1. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 1 September 2025 in Writ-A No. 64672 of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/petitioner has been consigned to record declining the prayer made by the petitioner in the writ petition for quashing of advertisement for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (L.T. Grade) and for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to give preference to him as per Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-ordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Services Rules, 1983. 2. Rule 9 of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-ordinate Educational (Trained Graduates Grade) Services Rules, 1983 as quoted in the writ petition, is as follows: "Preferential qualification: A candidate who has — (i) served in the Territorial Army for a minimum period of two years, or (ii) obtained 'a' 'b' certificate of national Cadet Corps, shall other things being equal, be given preference in the matter of direct recruitment." 3. The case of the appellant/petitioner is that he was having 'B', 'C' certificate of NCC and therefore, during the recruitment exercise held in Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Shiv Charan Tripathi, V.K. Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rajendra Kumar Singh Mudit Kumar Bishnoi .....Appellant(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) pursuance of the impugned advertisement, he was entitled to preferential treatment over other candidates. 4. Learned Single Judge has considered the counter affidavit filed by the State and has recorded a finding that the appellant/petitioner would not come in the zone of consideration. It has also been observed that since in pursuance of the impugned recruitment exercise, the last selected candidate has not been impleaded, therefore, no effective relief can be granted. Additionally, it has also been observed that as the notification pertains to the year 2014 and selections have been completed long back, therefore, it would be futile exercise to examine the claim any further. 5. It is not disputed before us that a candidate having 'A', 'B' certificate is entitled to preferential treatment in the matter of direct recruitment provided other things are equal. The specific stand taken in the counter affidavit is that the cut off quality point mark in the Math/Science (General Category) was 75.36 whereas the quality point of the appellant/petitioner was 65.14. Thus, even if preferential treatment is extended to the appellant/petitioner, he would not score over the last selected candidate. Moreover, learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the appellant/petitioner has not impleaded the candidate over whom he claims preferential treatment. We find no illegality in the judgment of the learned Single Judge to warrant interference in the present matter. 6. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 7, 2025 Mukesh Kr. SPLA No. 916 of 2025 2 (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad