Failure to claim specific horizontal reservation in recruitment bars subsequent entitlement to such category benefits.

The petitioner participated in the selection process for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) in Science for District Champawat under a recruitment advertisement dated 07.11.2025.

She challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 4, alleging that he was selected despite securing lower marks than her.

The State contended that Respondent No. 4 was appointed under the 10% horizontal reservation category for *Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari* (Statehood Activists), whereas the petitioner competed in the unreserved category.

Although the petitioner claimed she also belonged to the *Andolankari* category, she admitted to not claiming this benefit in her application.

1. Whether the petitioner can challenge the selection of a candidate from a reserved category when she applied as an unreserved candidate.

2. Whether the lack of a specific vacancy break-up for *Uttarakhand Rajya Andolankari* in the advertisement advertisement vitiates the selection process.

The Court applied the provisions of Section 4 of "The Uttarakhand Reservation in Government Service For The Identified Andolankari Of Uttarakhand State Movement Or Their Dependants Act, 2023" (notified on 18.08.2024), which mandates a 10% horizontal reservation for identified activists or their dependents in State Services.

Furthermore, it relied on the contractual and procedural binding nature of the recruitment advertisement, specifically Note 2, which stipulated that horizontal reservations would apply as per Government Orders issued from time to time.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s contention that the advertisement was unclear regarding reservations.

It reasoned that Note 2 provided sufficient notice to all candidates that horizontal reservations, as per current legislation or Government Orders, would be applicable.

Since "The Uttarakhand Act of 2023" was already notified and active, it governed the selection.

The Court further observed that because the petitioner failed to claim the *Andolankari* reservation in her application, she could not retrospectively seek the benefit or compare her merit with Respondent No. 4, who was selected against a specifically reserved vacancy for a different category.

It concluded that without a formal claim for reservation at the time of application, the grievance regarding non-allotment of such benefit is without substance.

Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and no interference with the appointment of Respondent No. 4 was granted.