2025:UHC:3610-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 No. 1022 of 2017 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. Mr. S.K. Naiwal, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / appellants. 2. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate for the respondent. 3. State has filed this intra court appeal challenging judgment and order dated 01.05.2017 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2426 of 2016. The impugned judgment is reproduced below:- “The State Government issued an advertisement on 17.02.2016 for filling up 625 posts of Assistant Teachers in Primary School. The last date of receipt of application was 05.03.2016. Petitioner participated in the selection process, however, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected primarily on the ground that she had written 343 marks in her B.Ed. examination. However, the fact of the matter is that she has secured 347 marks in her B.Ed. examination. It is not in one of those cases, where higher marks have been quoted. Petitioner has quoted less marks i.e. 343 marks. However, she has obtained higher marks i.e. 347 marks. Respondents have taken a very hyper-technical approach while rejecting the candidature of the petitioner. The employer should take reasonable and practical approach. It is the substance and not the form. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Annexure dated 23.11.2016 is quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School within ten weeks from today.” 4. Learned State Counsel submits that writ petitioner (respondent herein) belong to OBC category and she sought appointment against a vacancy reserved for Other Backward Classes; there were only 27 vacancies which were available for Other Backward Classes and all candidates, who were selected and appointed, have secured more marks than the writ 2025:UHC:3610-DB petitioner. He further submits that writ petitioner had secured 52.65% marks in the selection; while the last candidate belonging to OBC, who was selected and appointed, secured 56.96% marks in the selection. He, thus submits that even if the mistake committed by the writ petitioner while applying for the vacancy in question is overlooked and her claim for appointment is considered on merit, then also, she is not entitled for appointment for the aforesaid reasons. 5. Perusal of the impugned judgment reveals that candidature of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that she mentioned in her application that she had scored 343 marks in B.Ed. examination; while actually her score in B.Ed. examination was 347. Thus, it is not a case where writ petitioner had played fraud upon the selecting body for getting some undue benefit. In fact, by mentioning lesser marks than her score in B.Ed. examination, she was not going to derive any undue benefit. 6. Learned Single Judge only directed the competent authority to consider case of writ petitioner for appointment. Thus if by virtue of her score of marks in the selection process, writ petitioner is not entitled for appointment, the competent authority can pass an order informing the writ petitioner about the reasons for her non appointment. Such order shall be passed within three months from date of presentation of certified copy of this order before him. 7. The Special Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. (Ashish Naithani, .J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, .J.) 07.05.2025 Navin