Candidates appearing for document verification in one district cannot challenge selection in other districts conducted simultaneously.

Petitioners applied for the post of Assistant Teacher in Government Primary Schools across 13 districts in Uttarakhand. Selection was based on quality point marks awarded for scholastic performance.

Counseling and document verification for all 13 districts were scheduled and conducted on the same day, January 12, 2026.

The petitioners participated in counseling in only one district and subsequently challenged the process, contending they were deprived of opportunities in other districts.

They further alleged that the selection was flawed because no merit list was prepared prior to counseling, as required under Rule 17 of the applicable service rules.

1. Whether the scheduling of counseling for all districts on the same day was legally infirm or prejudicial to the petitioners’ rights.

2. Whether the recruitment process violated Rule 17 due to the alleged non-preparation of a merit list prior to counseling.

Doctrine of Election: when a party voluntarily chooses one of two or more available courses of action, they are bound by that choice and cannot later grievance the consequences of neglecting the alternatives.

Rule 17 of the applicable service rules regarding the mandatory preparation of merit lists based on quality point marks for teacher recruitment.

The Court rejected the petitioners' contention that merit lists were missing, noting that the State Counsel produced lists for several districts showing candidates arranged in order of merit, thus satisfying Rule 17.

Regarding the unified date of counseling, the Court observed that since petitioners applied for multiple districts, it was their responsibility to approach authorities for a staggered schedule before the process concluded.

By appearing in one district, the petitioners exercised their "election." The Court reasoned that appointments of other candidates in different districts cannot be disturbed at a "belated stage" simply because a petitioner chose not to appear there, as the competent authority for those districts never had the opportunity to verify the petitioners' documents.

The Court directed the District Education Officers to upload the list of successful candidates and their marks on the official website within ten days. The petitions were disposed of with the direction that if any petitioner participated in counseling but was overlooked in favor of a less meritorious candidate within that same district, they may submit a representation to the competent authority for a decision within one month. All interim orders were vacated.