Dismissed¶(6)

Manisha Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC8 Apr 2026WPSS/2280/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Assistant Teacher recruitment Uttarakhand; Clause ‘Ga’ eligibility challenge; permanent resident/domicile requirement; employment exchange registration within Uttarakhand; 10th/12th schooling within Uttarakhand; District Education Officer (Primary) Almora advertisement 7.11.2025; eligibility rules framed 2010 amended by notification 28.6.2019; judicial review of recruitment eligibility conditions; out-of-State (Uttar Pradesh) candidate; WPSS 2163/2025, WPSS 2279/2025, WPSS 2280/2025; Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.; writ petitions dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Eligibility of a candidate has to be tested based on the advertisement or the applicable rules, and the condition mentioned in the advertisement is not so unreasonable as to warrant interference while exercising the power of judicial review. ¶(4)

Manisha Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand — Uttarakhand HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶(6)

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, who received his entire education in Uttar Pradesh and satisfies none of the three eligibility conditions in Clause ‘Ga’ of the advertisement dated 7.11.2025 (permanent resident/domicile of Uttarakhand; registration with an employment exchange within Uttarakhand before the last date of application; or passing 10th/12th examination from a school within Uttarakhand), is entitled to relief challenging Clause ‘Ga’ and a direction that his candidature not be rejected. +1 more

¶(3)

Court's answer

Although some conditions of eligibility mentioned in the advertisement are not referable to the 2019 amendment rules, the petitioner does not meet the condition of the rules as well as the condition mentioned in the advertisement.

¶(6)

Ratio / Principle

¶(4)

Key takeaways

Every candidate for appointment to public services has to meet the eligibility conditions as determined by the employer; since the petitioner does not meet any one of the three conditions mentioned in the advertisement or in the rules, the Court found no good ground to interfere in the matter.ratio¶(6)

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Uttarakhand (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) dismissed WPSS 2163/2025, WPSS 2279/2025 and WPSS 2280/2025 by a common judgment dated 8.4.2026. The petitioners, residents of Uttar Pradesh educated entirely in that State, challenged Clause ‘Ga’ of the advertisement dated 7.11.2025 issued by the District Education Officer (Primary), Almora for recruitment of Assistant Teachers in Government Primary Schools, which confined eligibility to candidates who are permanent residents/domiciles of Uttarakhand, or registered with an employment exchange within Uttarakhand before the last date of application, or passed their 10th/12th examination from a school within Uttarakhand; they also sought a direction that their candidature not be rejected. The Court held that eligibility must be tested against the advertisement or the applicable rules (public services eligibility rules framed in 2010 and amended by notification dated 28.6.2019); although some advertised conditions were not referable to the amendment rules, the petitioners met neither the conditions of the rules nor those of the advertisement; the condition was not so unreasonable as to warrant interference under judicial review, every candidate having to meet the eligibility conditions determined by the employer. Writ petitions accordingly failed and were dismissed.

¶1

2026:UHC:2519

¶2

SL. No.	Date	Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures	COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS
			WPSS 2163/2025 WPSS 2279/2025 WPSS 2280/2025 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Nikhil Bhatt, Advocate, i/b Mr. Dushyant Mainali, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Narayan Datt, Standing Counsel, for the State.
			(2) Since the issue involved in all these writ petitions is identical, therefore, these are being heard and decided together by this common judgment. However, for brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2163 of 2025 alone are being considered and discussed here. (3) Petitioner is resident of State of Uttar Pradesh and he received his entire education, including High School, Intermediate and D.El.Ed., from the same State. District Education Officer (Primary), Almora issued an advertisement on 7.11.2025, inviting applications from eligible persons for appointment as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools. As per the advertisement, which is on record as Annexure-1 to the writ petition, only such candidate would be eligible for appointment who is either permanent resident/domicile of Uttarakhand or his name is registered with any employment exchange within State of Uttarakhand before the last date of submission of application, or he has passed 10^thor 12^thexamination from any school within State of Uttarakhand. Since
			petitioner does not meet any one of these

¶3

2026:UHC:2519

¶4

three eligibility conditions, therefore, he has approached this Court challenging the relevant clause (Clause ‘Ga’) of the advertisement. He has also sought a direction to the competent authority not to reject his candidature on the ground that he does not meet the requirement of Clause ‘Ga’ of the advertisement. (4) Learned State Counsel contends that the condition of eligibility, as mentioned in the advertisement, is based on statutory rules, notified on 28.6.2019, therefore challenge to the condition mentioned in the advertisement cannot be sustained. (5) Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that the condition of registration with employment exchange within State of Uttarakhand or the condition of being permanent resident of State of Uttarakhand is not mentioned in the statutory rules, notified on 28.6.2019. (6) Perusal of the notification dated 28.6.2019 reveals that the rules regarding eligibility for public services, framed in 2010, were amended in 2019. Even though some of the conditions of eligibility, mentioned in the advertisement, are not referable to the amendment rules, however, the fact remains that petitioner does not meet the condition of the rules as well as the condition as mentioned in the advertisement. Since eligibility of a candidate has to be tested based on the advertisement or the applicable rules and the condition mentioned in the advertisement cannot be said to be so unreasonable so as to warrant interference while exercising power of judicial review, therefore, this Court do not find any good

¶5

2026:UHC:2519

¶6

ground to grant the relief as prayed for. Every candidate, for appointment to public services, has to meet the eligibility conditions as determined by the employer; since petitioner does not meet any one of three conditions mentioned in the advertisement or in the rules, therefore, this Court do not find any good ground to interfere in the matter. Writ petitions thus fail and are dismissed.

¶7

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 8.4.2026 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=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53, cn=PRABODH KUMAR Date: 2026.04.08 19:09:38 +05'30'

¶8

2026:UHC:2519

Manisha Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manisha Singh v. State of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Singh Bhauryal Constable No. 3554 Vs Deputy Inspector of P.A.C. Police Headquarter

Matwar Singh Vs State of Uttarakhand through Its Secretary Education

Rajesh Saini Vs State of Uttarakhand

Ranveer Singh Panwar Vs State of Uttarakhand

Neeraj Singh Kotwal Vs Badrinath Kedarnath Temple Committee

Virendra Vs State of Uttarakhand