2025:UHC:7140-DB SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA/513/2018 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Subhash Upadhyay, J. (per : Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Priyansh Mittal, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Abhijay Negi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sushil Vashisth, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Ashish Joshi, Advocate for respondent No. 2. 2. There is delay of 15 days in filing the Appeal. For the reasons indicated, delay is condoned. Accordingly, Delay Condonation Application (CLMA/9284/2018) stands disposed of. 3. This intra-Court appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 09.05.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 941 of 2016. By the said judgment, writ petition filed by the appellant, challenging rejection of her candidature for the post of Data Entry Operator, was dismissed. 4. In her writ petition, filed in 2016, appellant had sought the following reliefs: “a. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the list no. 872/06/E-2/I.T./D.R./2014- 15 relating to ineligible candidates issues by the respondent no. 2 informing rejection of the application of the petitioner for the post of Data Entry Operator and subsequent letter dated 2.4.2016 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for removal of her name from the reject list; b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to permit the petitioner in appearing for the practical test and to consider the petitioner for appointment to the post of Data Entry 2025:UHC:7140-DB Operator.” 5. The candidature of the appellant for the post of Data Entry Operator was rejected on the ground that one-year Diploma possessed by her was neither recognised by NCTVT nor it was issued by any well- known institution/organisation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Learned Single Judge has relied upon a judgment dated 10.03.2015, rendered by Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 649 of 2014. In the said judgment, identical question was decided and it was held that writ Court erred in interfering with the selection where question of eligibility of a candidate was concerned. 8. Since the controversy involved in the present case is identical to the one decided in Special Appeal No. 649 of 2014, therefore, we are not inclined to take a view different to the one taken by coordinate Bench of this Court. 9. Thus, we decline to interfere with the judgment passed by learned Single Judge. 10. Special Appeal fails and is dismissed. (Subhash Upadhyay, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 13.08.2025 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626D305B1BC9EA4BAB A43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2025.08.19 10:10:19 +05'30'