2025:UHC:11011 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/842/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Dr. Udyog Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Standing Counsel for the State. 2. Petitioner participated in a selection held in the year 2024 for the post of Assistant Teacher (Mathematics) in Government Primary School. According to him, he was called for interview and he was finally selected but appointment letter was not issued to him. By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no.3 District Education Officer (elementary education) Pauri Garhwal to issue the appointment letter of the petitioner. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondent no. 2 to direct the District Education Officer (elementary education) of Pauri Garhwal to take decision in to the matter of the petitioner and release the appointment letter to the petitioner.” 3. Learned State Counsel, however, refers to para 6, 7 & 8 of the counter affidavit, filed by Nagendra Bartwal, District Education Officer (Elementary Education), Pauri Garhwal, which are extracted below: “6) That on the day of counseling, total 04 candidates including the petitioner appeared against 02 vacant posts of Physics, Mathematics subjects of unreserved category, whose details are as follows :- 2025:UHC:11011 7) The quality points of the petitioner Mr. Imran Ansari mentioned at serial number 04 of the above table is 76.71. The candidates having higher quality points than the petitioner, Mr. Rahul Kumar, son of Mr. Shashipal Singh, quality points 77.57 and Mr. Shivam Kumar, son of Mr. Rajesh Singh, quality points 76.82 were present, who have been appointed to the post of Assistant Teacher Primary against the vacant 02 posts vide order dated 26.03.2025 of District Education Officer, Primary Education, Pauri Garhwal. 8) That the candidate having higher quality points than the petitioner Mr. Imran Ansari is Mr. Nikhil Sharma, son of Mr. Manoj Kumar Sharma, whose quality points is 76.80, also appeared on the said date. Along with the petitioner, he has also not been given appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher Primary due to non-availability of posts under Physics, Mathematics subjects of unreserved category.” 4. Based on the pleadings made in the counter affidavit, learned State Counsel submits that since there were candidates with higher merit than petitioner who were offered appointment, therefore petitioner could not be offered any appointment. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that there are as many as seven vacancies still available, therefore stand taken in the counter affidavit that there were only two vacancies available, is incorrect. 6. Since this plea is not taken in the writ petition and defence taken by learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the counter affidavit, respondents have taken a ‘U’ turn, therefore this Court thinks that ends of justice would be met if 2025:UHC:11011 petitioner is permitted to highlight the said aspects before the competent authority by making a representation. 7. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with liberty to petitioner to make representation to the District Education Officer (Elementary), Pauri Garhwal. 8. If petitioner makes such representation highlighting aforesaid aspect, namely, availability of seven vacancies, decision thereupon shall be taken by concerned District Education Officer, as per law, within eight weeks thereafter. 9. It goes without saying that all persons who are likely to be affected by the decision taken, shall also be heard. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 10.12.2025 Mahinder/