2026:UHC:2560 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS 635/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Ishwari Datt Paliwal, Advocate, i/b Mr. Bhupendra Prasad, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. G.S. Negi, Additional CSC, for the State. (2) Petitioner applied for the post of Veterinary Pharmacist, pursuant to an advertisement issued on 21.12.2016. Since petitioner was not recommended for appointment, therefore, he has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs: “i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Veterinary Pharmacist pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.12.2016, considering the petitioner dependent of Rajya Andolankari. ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to give all consequential benefit to the petitioner.” (3) Petitioner contends that as per the government policy, horizontal reservation to the extent of ten per cent is available to Rajya Andolankari in State services and there are vacancies available on the advertised post of Veterinary Pharmacist, therefore petitioner should be appointed by giving benefit of reservation available to Rajya Andolankari. (4) Learned State Counsel submits that in the advertisement dated 21.12.2016, there was no vacancy 2026:UHC:2560 earmarked for Rajya Andolankari. He submits that reservation given to Rajya Andolankari was challenged in PIL No. 67 of 2011 and an interim order was passed in that PIL on 26.8.2013, whereby State Government was restrained from giving benefit of reservation to Rajya Andolankari and because of that interim order, reservation was not made available to Rajya Andolankari in the selection in question. State Counsel further submits that PIL No. 67 of 2011 was decided in 2018 and the reservation given to Rajya Andolankari was set aside. He submits that subsequently, State brought a legislation whereby reservation to Rajya Andolankari was reintroduced in the year 2023. Thus, learned State Counsel submits that the writ petition is misconceived and petitioner is not entitled to the relief as claimed in the writ petition. (5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner then contended that in 2010, selection was held for the post of Supply Inspector and one Sri Dharmendra Singh, who belonged to category of Rajya Andolankari, was appointed on 29.10.2024 by giving him benefit of Rajya Andolankari. Thus he contends that in the similar manner, petitioner is also entitled to reservation. (6) Learned State Counsel submits that in the advertisement issued for the post of Supply Inspector, certain vacancies were set apart for Rajya Andolankari, whereas in the present case, no vacancy was earmarked for Rajya Andolankari, therefore two cases are entirely different and petitioner cannot claim any parity with Dharmendra Singh, who was appointed as Supply Inspector pursuant to a selection 2026:UHC:2560 held in 2010. (7) This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel. Since there was no indication to the candidates that any vacancy is earmarked for Rajya Andolankari in the advertisement issued in 2016, therefore, petitioner does not have any legitimate expectation nor any vested right to claim benefit of reservation. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 9.4.2026 Pr PRABODH KUMAR Digitally signed by PRABODH KUMAR DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aea b198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052D F6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.04.15 18:45:03 +05'30' 2026:UHC:2560