2026:UHC:3187 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/1108/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 3. Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, learned counsel for the respondent-Selecting Body. 4. Petitioner participated in a selection for the post of Deputy Librarian held by Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission. According to her, by virtue of her merit, her name figured in the list of successful candidates, however, for want of necessary information from the Selecting Body, she could not appear for document verification/scrutiny on the scheduled date, time & place, as a result, her name was not recommended for appointment. 5. Earlier petitioner filed WPSS No. 1420 of 2025, which was disposed of by permitting petitioner to make representation and the Secretary, UKSSSC was directed to take decision on her representation by passing a reasoned order. 6. Pursuant to order passed in writ petition, her representation has been rejected by Secretary, UKSSSC vide order dated 30.09.2025, which is impugned in this writ petition. The reason assigned for rejecting petitioner’s representation is that the information, regarding document verification/scrutiny, was given to all successful candidates through website, and if petitioner did not check the website 2026:UHC:3187 in time, then she herself is to be blamed. 7. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the rejection order dated 30.09.2025. Even though in the advertisement, it was mentioned that information to candidates shall be provided by the Selecting Body through e- mail, SMS or by uploading information in website, and even if the stand taken by petitioner is taken on its face value, that no information regarding document verification/scrutiny was given to her by e- mail or SMS, then also the notice regarding date of document verification if given to candidates, including the petitioner, by uploading the notice in website, would be sufficient. 8. It is not mentioned in the advertisement that information to candidate has to be provided by all the three aforesaid modes, therefore, information, if given through one mode, is sufficient. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to family problem, petitioner could not watch the website, which resulted in loss of her right to be considered for appointment. 10. Since petitioner herself is to be blamed for this chaos, therefore, the view taken by the Secretary, UKSSSC cannot be faulted. Thus, there is no scope for interfere with the impugned order. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 28.04.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b08 d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4F 4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.04.28 07:49:45 -07'00' 2026:UHC:3187