YAMINI JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant responded to an advertisement for the posts of Assistant Review Officers/Review Officers. Each applicant was required to respond to the advertisement by filling up an OMR sheet. Column No.6 of the OMR sheet was filled up by the appellant depicting that she was a female. Additionally, column No.8 was filled up by the appellant affirming that she was a domicile of the State of Uttaranchal. In the process of selection she was evaluated. Consequent upon the determination of the respondents not to appoint the appellant against the advertised posts, she approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (S/S) No. 313 of 2010. The pointed contention of the appellant before the learned Single Judge, who adjudicated upon Writ Petition (S/S) No.313 of 20120, was that the appellant having expressly depicted in the OMR sheet, that she was a female domiciled in the State of Uttaranchal, her candidature was bound to be considered against the seats reserved for females from Uttaranchal. While declining the aforesaid prayer made by the appellant, the learned Single Judge, while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition, vide an order dated 05.05.2010 recorded that the appellant had not applied for being considered by way of reservation, and as such, she could not be considered for the reserved category of females domiciled in the State of Uttaranchal.

(2.) Dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, disposing of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 313 of 2010, the appellant has again approached this Court through the instant Special Appeal. Yet again, the pointed contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is, that it was repetitive for the appellant to fill up column No.12 which pertains to various categories of reservation, inasmuch as, the appellant having earlier recorded in the OMR sheet, that she was a female domiciled in the State of Uttaranchal, she was liable to be considered for the reserved category of UF i.e. Uttaranchal Females based on her response to column Nos. 6 and 8 of the OMR sheet.

(3.) We have considered the solitary contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. All those candidates, who were desirous of being considered by way of reservation, were required to respond to column No.12. Column No.12 envisaged reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Back Ward Categories, Defence Personnel, Ex Service Men, Sports Persons, Government Servants earlier employed in the State of Uttaranchal, Uttaranchal Females, Physically Handicap candidates, whether they were possessing low vision, hearing impairment or locomoter disability. Every candidate, who was desirous of being considered for any of the aforesaid reserved categories, was liable to respond to column No.12 of the OMR sheet depicting the particular reservation the candidate was claiming. Undisputedly, the appellant herein did not fill up column No.12 so as to claim reservation as an Uttaranchal female. As such, the learned Single Judge declined the claim of the appellant by passing the impugned order dated 05.05.2010 to issue a direction to the respondent to consider the appellant against the reserved category of Uttaranchal Females. We find no infirmity in the instant determination rendered by the learned Single Judge. It is apparent that the appellant did not choose to claim appointment by way of reservation, inasmuch as, she did not fill up column No.12. Having failed to fill up column No.12, so as to claim reservation as an Uttaranchal female, even though she may have been awarded more marks than other Uttaranchal females who sought such reservation, her claim cannot be evaluated from the reserved category of Uttaranchal Females, as she never applied for the same.