2025:UHC:10467 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1892/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Vikas Bahuguna, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Narayan Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for respondent through video conferencing. 2. Petitioner claims to be an ex-serviceman. He applied for the post of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) pursuant to an advertisement issued by Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission. In the said advertisement, nine vacancies were reserved for ex-serviceman. 3. Petitioner contends that only three candidates belonging to ex-serviceman category were selected and remaining six vacancies remained unfilled. This according to petitioner is unjust and arbitrary. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Selecting Body, however, submits that the benchmark fixed for all candidates except SC and ST is 50% of the maximum marks; he submits that since only three candidates belonging to ex- serviceman category could secure 50% or more marks, therefore, names of only three candidates belonging to such category were included in the select list. 2025:UHC:10467 5. He submits that since petitioner scored only about 40% marks, therefore, grievance raised by petitioner is unsustainable. 6. Learned State Counsel points out that the benchmark fixed for different categories has been fixed by statutory rules framed in 2022. He submits that since petitioner was not able to meet the requirement of benchmark as per the rules, therefore he cannot seek any direction to include his name in the select list. 7. Learned State Counsel further points out that the validity of rules has not been questioned by petitioner. 8. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel and the Selecting Body. Since every candidate has to achieve the minimum benchmarks fixed by statutory rules and petitioner’s score was below the benchmark, therefore this Court do not find any reason to interfere in the matter. 9. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 25.11.2025 Mahinder/