Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Puneet Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 2 and 3.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the selection of the respondent no. 4 on the post of Assistant Engineer (Electronics and Instrumentation).
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that an advertisement was issued by the respondent-Corporation inviting applications for various posts including that of Assistant Engineer (Trainee) (E and M) Cadre. So far as the present controversy is concerned, the matter pertains to the post of Assistant Engineer against the branch of Electronics/Instrumentation.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that 12 vacancies had been advertised so far as it pertains to the Electronics/Instrumentation branch of Assistant Engineer of which three were reserved for Schedule Caste, three for OBCs and six for General Category candidates. Copy of the advertisement has been filed as annexure 2 to the petition.
The petitioner finding himself eligible for the said post and being a Schedule Caste candidate applied in pursuance to the said advertisement and claims to have secured 143 marks. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that despite the petitioner having obtained 143 marks in the Schedule Caste category to which the petitioner belongs, the petitioner was not selected rather the respondent no. 4 i.e Sri Virendra Kumar has been selected despite he having obtained 137.75 marks. Copy of the post wise, branch wise combined merit list of selected candidates has been filed as annexure 1 to the petition wherein the name of the respondent no. 4 finds placed at Serial No. 11.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that once the petitioner has obtained more marks than the respondent no. 4, consequently there cannot be any occasion for the respondent-Corporation to appoint the respondent no. 4 despite the petitioner having the better merit viz-a-viz the respondent no. 4. Thus, the present petition for quashing of the selection of the respondent no. 4 and for a direction to the respondents to select the petitioner on the post of Assistant Engineer (Trainee).
On the other hand, Sri Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the basis on instructions submits that admittedly the petitioner an Schedule Caste candidate has obtained 143 marks viz-a-viz the respondent no. 4 who obtained 137.75 marks. However, the respondent no. 4 who was also a Schedule Caste category candidate as well as physically handicapped accordingly considering the horizontal reservation which was made applicable as was specified in the aforesaid advertisement at Serial No. 9 (iv) of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, by applying 3% horizontal reservation for physically handicapped candidates, the respondent no. 4 was declared as selected despite the respondent no. 4 having obtained lower marks than the petitioner. Thus, it is contended that there is no illegality or infirmity in the selection of the respondent no. 4.
Having heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and having perused the records and taking into consideration the statement of Sri Puneet Chandra of the respondent no. 4 having been appointed against the 3% reservation for the physically handicapped candidate quota which falls within the ambit of the horizontal reservation which has been created for such physically handicapped persons and admittedly, the petitioner being not a physically handicapped candidate, consequently even if the petitioner has obtained higher marks than the respondent no. 4, yet both candidates being Schedule Caste and the respondent no. 4 being physically handicapped having been given the benefit of 3% horizontal reservation meant for physically handicapped candidate, consequently there is no illegality or infirmity in the action of the officials respondents selecting and appointing the respondent no. 4.
Keeping in view the aforesaid discussions, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 30.8.2019 Pachhere/-