Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10493 of 2018 Petitioner :- Monika Rani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kirt Raj Yadav,Juned Alam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Kailash Singh Kushwaha
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The present petition has been filed with the prayer seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 namely the U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission, through its Secretary to select and appoint the petitioner on the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) on the ground that she has attained higher marks than the last selected candidate and further seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide her representation.
On a pointed query made by the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) pursuant to the Advertisement No.14/2015 dated 18.9.2015, in different Departments of the State of U.P., has been finalised in the month of May, 2017.
On the basis of an application dated 5.2.2018 moved under the RTI Act and the reply dated 28.3.2018 received by the petitioner, the petitioner seeks to submit that she has attained higher marks than the last selected candidate and submits that she is entitled for selection and appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil).
The latches on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court seeking a writ of mandamus has been explained with the assertion that the petitioner has not been informed about the cut-off-marks of the last selected candidate, despite repeated efforts.
It is noteworthy that no explanation whatsoever has been offered by the petitioner as to why he is approaching this Court after a period of approximately one year. The submission in the writ petition is that the petitioner has obtained 563 marks by combining the marks in the written and interview examinations which is higher than the last cut-off-marks of Civil Engineer (PWD) under the horizontal reservation quota of female candidates. In paragraph '22' of the writ petition, it is sought to be submitted that the petitioner had applied as 'SC Category' candidate and was entitled for vertical and horizontal reservation, both.
In so far as the last selected candidate namely the respondent No.4, according to the petitioner she has obtained 554 marks, however, the category to which, the respondent No.4 belongs has not been disclosed in the writ petition.
It is, thus, not known as to whether the respondent No.4 belongs to the same category to which the petitioner belongs. Vague assertions have been made in the entire writ petition challenging the selection of respondent No.4. As far as the information under the RTI Act is concerned, a copy of the reply dated 28.3.2018 (Page '75' of the paper book) indicates that earlier an information was provided to the petitioner on issue being raised herein, which is not brought on record.
It is settled law that a person who has participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the select list on vague assertions. Specific case was required to be made out by the petitioner for challenging the select list which was finalised in the month of May, 2017.
Moreover, the writ petition suffers from inordinate unexplained latches on the part of the petitioner.
For all the above noted reasons, the writ petition is found misconceived.
Dismissed as such.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Jyotsana