JUDGMENT Vineet Saran, J.
1. Heard Sri L.C. Srivastava, learned counsal for the petitioner and Sri B.N. Singh learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
2. The petitioner was an applicant for promotion as junior Telecom officer. Out of the total number of posts of Junior Telecom officer, 50% were to be filled up by promotion and 50% by direct recruitment. Out of the quota for promotion, 35% was to be filled up from amongst technical post holders and 15% from amongst non-techinical post holders. Promotion of both the categories was to be made by selection which, in the present case, was through a written examination. The petitioner was an applicant from amongst technical post holder. For both the classic, the cut off marks for such promotion was fixed at 40% The petitioner admittedly secured 34% in the examination and hence was not selected. Since the respondents could get sufficient number of candidates from amongst the technical post holders who had secured 40% or above, hence 35% quota for promotion from amongst technical post holder had been filled up as per the initial circular issued by the respondents. Since from amongst the non technical post holders, sufficient number of candidates had not secured 40% marks and the 15% promotion, which was to be given to non technical post holders only, could not be transferred to any other category, hence the respondent-authorities issued a Circular bringing down the cut off percentage for non technical category from 40% to 30% The respondent-authorities thus filled up the 15% promotional post from amongst the non technical post holders after reducing the cut off percentage for them.
3. The petitioner contends that since the non technical post holders have been given the benefit of reduction of cut off percentage from 40% to 30% the petitioner, who is a technically qualified person should also be given the same benefit and thus since he had acquired 34% marks in the examination conducted by the respondents for such promotion, he should also be granted promotion as junior Telecom officer.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the perusal of record I do not find that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs prayed for in this writ petition. The petitioner falls in a different category than the non technical post holders. Promotions were to be made as per the quota fixed. The fact that 35% posts of junior Telecom officer were to be filled up by technical post holders and 15% by non technical post holder is not under challenge in this writ petition. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved by reduction of the cut off percentage of marks given in the case of a different class than that of the petitioner i.e. non technical post holders. Thus the petitioner cannot be said to have been discriminated. Had there been any discrimination in lowering the cut off percentage from amongst the technical post holders by creating different classes, it would have been a different matter but since in the class in which the petitioner had appeared, the cut off percentage remained the same for all such technical post holder who had appeared in the examination for promotion, in my view there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The action of the respondents, thus, cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary.
5. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.