AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
An advertisement was published on 17.02.2016 for filling up 653 posts of Assistant Teacher including Urdu Teacher in different Primary Schools in
State of Uttarakhand. A subsequent notification was published on 04.03.2016 thereby increasing the number of vacancies from 653 to 1200.Â
Petitioner applied for the post under OBC quota but could not get selection. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner approached this Court.Â
Heard Mr. Davesh Bishnoi, Advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. V.D. Bisen, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.
Petitioner was not appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher as she could not secured the required quality mark and she had not annexed the caste
certificate as per the provisions of Government Order dated 26.02.2016. Petitioner secured 58.6049 quality point marks whereas the last selected
candidate in OBC category secured 63.62917 quality point marks. Â
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondents have not applied the quota, as per Government Orders and there was no
classification of posts in the advertisement dated 17.02.2016. He has further submitted that there is 14% quota for the OBC candidates, therefore,
respondents should have filled up 168 posts from OBC category candidates whereas they have only filled only 54 posts from OBC category
candidates.Â
Respondent no. 2 has filed counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, respondent no. 2 has given details of posts in paragraph 4 of the counter
affidavit. As per posts detail, there are 389 (Assistant Teacher) + 13 (Urdu Teacher) = 402 fresh vacancies and 798 backlog vacancies and out 389
vacancies, 54 posts are reserved for OBC category candidates, which is per 14% quota and they have filled up all the vacancies under OBC
quota. Â
It is settled position of law that quota, prescribed as per Government Orders, will be applicable on the new vacancies and it will not be applicable on
the backlog vacancies. Backlog vacancies will be filled up from their respective quota and in case of non-availability of candidates, it will carry
forward to the next calendar year vacancy.   Therefore, the argument of the petitioner that respondents have not filled up vacancies under OBC
quota by giving prescribed quota has no force.Â
So far as the second argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents have not made classification of the vacancies in the
advertisement is concerned, in my opinion, advertisement published by the respondents is abridged one and in the advertisement itself it is mentioned
that for details visit to the website. Even otherwise, respondent no. 2 has given the details of vacancies in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit and in
reply whereof petitioner has said nothing. So this argument also has no force.Â
No other point is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.Â
In view of the above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Â