HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 218 of 2025 Neha Chauhan ….....Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. B.S. Adhikari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C.S. Rawat, C.S.C. with Mr. Narain Dutt, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the UKSSSC. Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of instant petition, the petitioner claims that her name should be included in the provisional recruitment list forwarded by Uttarakhand Suboridinate Service Selection Commission (“the Commission”) for appointment to the post Assistant Teacher (LT) Home Science, General Category. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that on 14.03.2024, the respondent no.2/ Commission invited application for selection on the 1544 posts of Assistant Teacher (LT) in different subjects in Uttarakhand. The petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Teacher (LT), Home Science. She was eligible for it. There were two posts of Assistant Teacher, (LT) Home Science in General Category, but only one candidate bearing rank no.1 was selected and one post is still vacant. 4. It is the claim of the petitioner that she deserves selection against the post of general category as she had obtained 62 marks and 2 she come at rank 6. But, in the provisional merit list issued by the respondent/Commission, the name of the petitioner has not figured. Therefore, the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is qualified to be recommended because she has secured 62 marks. He submits that now the respondent/Commission in its counter affidavit, para 7 admitted that the name of the petitioner could not be recommended in the list and one position is vacant and due to interim order passed by this Court in WPSS No. 365 of 2025, recommendation could not be made. Therefore, in essence, it is argued that the error has admitted by the respondent/Commission and the petitioner deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/Commission submits that the petitioners name is to be recommended for selection. There was a technical error, which has been identified now. Since, the interim order has been vacated in WPSS No. 365 of 2025 because it has been dismissed as withdrawn on 05.08.2025, the name of the petitioner would be recommended by the Commission. 7. The Court takes on record the statement given by the learned counsel for the Commission. 8. In view of the statement given on behalf of the respondent/Commission, nothing survives in the petition. It stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 08.08.2025 Jitendra