2025:UHC:8235 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/2598/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. M.K. Ray & Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent nos. 1 to 5. 3. Petitioner was recommended for ‘Shailesh Matiyani State Educational Award’ by the Block Level Selection Committee, however, respondent no. 6 was ultimately given the said award for the year 2024. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “(A) issue writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for Shailesh Matiyani State Educational Award for the year 2024. (B) issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to afresh evaluate the Application Forms submitted by the candidates in accordance with the notification dated 15-05-2024 in pursuance to the Shailesh Matiyani State Educational Award, 2024.” 4. Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions. On instructions, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, stated that although petitioner was placed above Dr. Vineeta Khati (respondent no. 6), as per merit by the Block Level Selection Committee, however, the District Level Selection Committee awarded less marks to the petitioner compared to Dr. Vineeta Khati, therefore, petitioner’s name was not 2025:UHC:8235 recommended to the Divisional Level Selection Committee. He further submits that the assessment of teachers is made at the block level, district level and regional level and final decision is taken by the State Government based on the recommendation made by the Regional Level Committee. Thus he submits that the assessment made by the Block Level Committee alone does not create any right in favour of the petitioner to get the award. 5. This Court finds substance in the said submission. Since petitioner was given lesser marks by District Level Selection Committee compared to Dr. Vineeta Khati and his name was not recommended any further by the District Level Committee, therefore, the grievance now raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. 6. Law is well settled that judicial review concerns the decision making process and not the decision itself. In the absence of any flaw in the decision making process, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the assessment made by the District Level Selection Committee and Regional Level Selection Committee. 7. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 16.09.2025 Navin NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df006 da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA8756 43AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2025.09.17 17:21:23 +05'30'