2026:UHC:1672-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE PANKAJ PUROHIT 12TH MARCH, 2026 Writ Petition (S/B) No. 508 of 2024 Mohit Joshi …Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand & others. …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Mr. Kailash Chandra, learned counsel. Counsel for the respondent no. 1 : Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Ashish Joshi, learned counsel. Counsel for respondent no. 4 : Mr. Yogesh Kumar Pacholia, learned counsel. JUDGMENT : (per Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 1. Petitioner passed B. Tech. degree in Production Engineering with second division marks. He, thereafter, passed M. Tech. in Foundry Forge Technology. Petitioner was desirous of appointment as Lecturer in Government Polytechnic. Uttarakhand Public Service Commission notified vacancies on the post of Lecturer, Polytechnic; petitioner responded to that advertisement, however, his application was not accepted on the ground that petitioner does not possess the 1 2026:UHC:1672-DB requisite qualification i.e. B. Tech. degree with first division marks. 2. Petitioner contends that he is eligible, as per the AICTE norms, therefore, the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government cannot go counter to the AICTE norms and the Recruitment Rules have to give way to the AICTE notification. 3. The relief sought in the writ petition are as follows:- “I. A writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to amend/modify the Rules 2020 i.e. Uttarakhand Technical Education Gazetted Officers Services (Amendment) Rules, 2020 with regard to the clause-2 (1) Lecturer (i) Lecturer, Mechanical Engineer to include the master's degree in Engineering/technology, first Class or equivalent at Bachelors or masters level as is provided in A.I.C.T.E. (All India Counsel for Technical Education) Regulation 2010 vide Gazette notification dated 05.03.2010 for pay scales, service conditions and qualifications for teachers and other academic staff in Technical Institution (Diploma) regulations 2010, for faculty norms for minimum qualification and experience for appointment of teaching post in diploma and technical institution for post of lecturer in engineering/technology. II. Issue any other relief to the petitioner which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit. III. Award the cost of petition to the petitioner. IV. Issue an, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to direct the respondents to consider the qualification as required in the advertisement dated 23.07.2024 in the rules 2020 (i.e. Annexure no. 4) made by the State of Uttarakhand in the light of A.I.C.T.E. (All India Counsel for Technical Education) Regulation 2010 vide Gazette notification dated 05.03.2010 (i.e. Annexure no. 5) and consequently to accept the petitioner's candidature for the post of Lecturer in Mechanical engineering accordingly.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per AICTE norms, a candidate who has scored first division marks either in B. Tech. or M. Tech. is eligible; while, as per the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government, one must 2 2026:UHC:1672-DB secure first division marks in B. Tech. alone, to be eligible. Thus, he submits that the Recruitment Rules framed by the State Government are unsustainable, as they are contrary to the AICTE norms. 5. We are not impressed by the said submission. As regulatory body, AICTE lays down minimum qualification/marks needed for appointment to a particular post, however, the employer can always raise the bar by prescribing higher qualification or more marks for appointment to a post, therefore, validity of Recruitment Rules cannot be tested on the anvil of AICTE norms. The Rules could have been struck down only if they were repugnant to the AICTE norms. 6. Moreover, petitioner neither has challenged the Recruitment Rules nor the rejection order passed by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. He has sought a direction to the rule making authority to amend the Rules, which can be granted. 7. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for interference in the matter. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 12.03.2026 Navin 3 NAVEEN CHANDRA Digitally signed by NAVEEN CHANDRA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3be23325146e76a0642bdf4943fb9046f487df 006da82a131bb4e4403d3c0a15, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=18167EEFB5CA8CFFD421A103819DA87 5643AF56D653D095C6ED9A86DAAB21CE5, cn=NAVEEN CHANDRA Date: 2026.03.16 10:42:35 +05'30'