IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 64 (S/B) of 2008. Jishan Ali & others .……… Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ……… Respondents Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J.P. Joshi, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. B.D. Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.D. Kandpal, Advocate for respondent No. 3. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble V.K. Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. V.K. GUPTA, C. J. (Oral) The prescription about the candidates obtaining a minimum of 60% of marks in the written examination in the relevant rule which has been impugned and challenged in this writ petition is based on a clear object sought to be achieved and there is a clear nexus because the requirement and the object sought to be achieved. We find that the impugned rule does not suffer from any vice of either arbitrariness or irrationality because the insistence on obtaining a minimum of 60% marks in the written examination has a direct bearing with the observance of maintaining high standard of quality. The concession given to the Scheduled Casts and Scheduled Tribes cannot be claimed as a matter of right by the candidates belonging of OBCs in view of clear constitutional scheme. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (V.K. Gupta, C. J.) 24.04.2008 24.04.2008 LSR/Shiv