JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. The petitioner was a candidate for the post of Assistant Review Officer (in short “A.R.O.”) in the establishment of High Court, which was conducted by Uttarakhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Commission”). In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged certain proceedings adopted by the Commission for the said selection process of A.R.O. 2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. N.S. Pundir, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Mr. Shobhit Saharia, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 and perused the record. 3. In the present case, counter affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that even the petitioner did not qualify preliminary examination, as the last cur-off marks for the post of Assistant Review Officer is 73.25 whereas the petitioner scored 73.00 marks. Moreover, the Diploma in Computer Science, which the petitioner possesses, does not fulfill the requisite qualification as provided in the advertisement. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Certificate in Computer Science, which the petitioner possesses, is from the recognized institute and it is equivalent to ‘O’ Level Certificate, as required in the advertisement. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1/Commission - Mr. N.S. Pundir relied upon a decision of Division Bench in Surendra Kumar & another Vs State of Uttarakhand reported in 2015 (1) U.D. 163 . The operative portion of the same reads as under:- “30. In this case, as already noted, the advertisement was issued in the year 2011; the advertisement was not challenged. Therefore, it is binding on the appellants. We are not persuaded by the attempts by the appellants to get the Appeal dismissed as not pressed or by the attempt to remit the matter back for fresh consideration by the learned Single Judge. In the facts of this case at this length of time, we see no reason to accede to either of the requests. Therefore, we would think that the learned Single Judge clearly erred in constituting a Committee even in this case for the purpose of investigating, whether the qualifications possessed by the appellants are equivalent to ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer Operations or even higher than that. Therefore, we would think that the learned Single Judge clearly erred in constituting a Committee even in this case for the purpose of investigating, whether the qualifications possessed by the appellants are equivalent to ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer Operations or even higher than that. We have already taken the view that the fact that there were no institutes in sufficient number in the State of Uttarakhand issuing ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer Operations is no ground to dilute the qualifications fixed by the Authority. Also as far as posts for which ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer Operations is not required, we fail to see any purpose being served by constituting any Committee. No doubt, this aspect has not engaged the attention of the learned Single Judge. Obviously, the appellants were and now appear to be interested in the posts for which ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer Operations is mandatory qualification; the other posts appear to be fewer in number. Under the advertisement, the competent Authority is the Board. Having regard to the qualifications, which are fixed, we see no reason why the Board will not be in a position to assess the appellants on the basis of the qualifications, which are required. We see that no purpose will be served also in remitting it back to the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge was essentially concerned with the issue of ‘O’ Level qualification. In such circumstances, we would think that there can be no question of constituting a committee and, therefore, the said direction must be set aside in respect of all posts. In fact, incidentally, we may notice that even the learned Single Judge was not satisfied by the report of the Committee that was constituted by the Court under an interim order, which has taken note of in the judgment. We pose a question as to what would be the fate of yet another Committee report, where perhaps the matter may not improve. For all these reasons, we would think that the judgment of the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. We, however, take note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Technical Education Board that the Board will certainly consider the case of the appellants for the posts, for which they are otherwise qualified, even without the possession of ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer Operations. We, however, take note of the submissions of the learned counsel for the Uttarakhand Technical Education Board that the Board will certainly consider the case of the appellants for the posts, for which they are otherwise qualified, even without the possession of ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer Operations. We have already noticed that the prayer in the writ petition was only to permit the petitioner to appear in the computer type test. In such circumstances, we dispose of the Appeal as follows: We dispose of the Appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directing that the Board will consider the case of the appellants for those posts, for which possession of ‘O’ Level Certificate in Computer Operations is not mandatory and for which the appellants are otherwise qualified. There will be no order as to costs.” 5. In view of the fact that firstly the petitioner could not qualify the preliminary examination, and also considering the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, the petitioner does not have the required qualification as well. This Court is not inclined to interfere in the present matter. 6. Accordingly, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.