Petitioner herein appeared in the B.T.C. 2004 selection, the result of which is said to have been declared on 23.1.2010. A copy of the same is annexed as part of Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
The petitioner not having been selected, sought information under the Right to Information Act vide his letter dated 11.5.2010. A copy of which is annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Respondents did not provide requisite information till 31.3.2014, when they did so.
As per the information provided by the respondents along with letter dated 31.3.2014, it was revealed that the candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner had been included in the select list, while the petitioner had been arbitrarily left out. Being aggrieved petitioner filed writ petition before this Court, bearing Writ A No. 28649 of 2014, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.5.2014, in the following terms-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. Sri A.K.Yadav, learned counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3.
For the Special BTC Training Course, 2004 the petitioner had obtained 188.73 marks under the Male, General, Art, Category but he was not selected. The petitioner then applied under the Right to Information Act and it was informed that the last selected candidate of the same category had obtained 188.63 marks. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner was wrongly excluded from the select list. It is also submitted that the selections are still going on.
As such, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.4 to consider the claim of the petitioner, if any vacancy still exists, and pass appropriate order in accordance with law."
The said judgment was corrected vide order dated 29.5.2015, which is as under-
"(Order on Civil Misc. Correction Application No. 192418 of 2014) In the first line of the second paragraph of the order dated 22.5.2014 where prior to the word BTC 'Special' is mentioned, it shall not be read henceforth in the said order and in the second line of the second paragraph where the marks '188.73' is mentioned, it shall now be read as '188.76'.
The application to the aforesaid extent is allowed. ".
In pursuance to the aforesaid, the respondent considered the claim of the petitioner and has passed the impugned order dated 3.9.2014, wherein he has admitted the fact that the name of the petitioner was excluded on account of error. However, he has said that as no seat relating to B.T.C. 2004 is vacant nor the selection is in process, therefore, the petitioner cannot be sent for training.The impugned order further states that petitioner did not raise any grievance at the appropriate stage.
Prima facie, the record reveals that the selection was held and the result was declared in January, 2010, the petitioner sought information vide his letter dated 11.5.2010, a fact which is admitted to the respondents in their letter dated 31.3.2014,.The concerned respondent/officer who was to provide information to the petitioner, kept sitting over the matter for more than four years and it is only vide his order dated 31.3.2014 the requisite information regarding selected candidates and the marks obtained by them was revealed to the petitioner, therefore, it is incorrect to say in the impugned order that petitioner did not raise the grievance at the appropriate stage, as in the absence of the requisite information he could not have done so.
It is the respondent who was sitting over the matter for more than 4 years. Once the respondents firstly admit that the petitioner was entitled to be included in the select list but was excluded on account of some error, and then, merely by saying that now no vacancy is available , petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the wrong of the respondents.
Put up this case, as fresh, on 12th November, 2014 to enable learned Standing Counsel to seek instruction as to how the petitioner can be adjusted against any vacancy available under any subsequent or earlier selection.
On the next date the Court shall also consider the grant of adequate compensation to the petitioner for the prejudice caused to him.
Order Date :- 28.10.2014 M.A.A.