Anil Kumar vs State of H.P.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.—The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming therein the following substantial relief:

(i) That a writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued directing the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for being appointed to the post of TGT (Non-Medical) under SC category from the date when his juniors have been appointed with all consequential benefits being senior as per age and batch-wise and further the respondents No. 1 and 2 be restrained from giving offer/appointment to any candidate under the category of the petitioner i.e. SC TGT (Non-Medical).

The petitioner claims himself to be aggrieved by the action of the official respondents whereby the junior persons to the petitioner have been appointed as TGT (Non-Medical), whereas, the petitioner, who is senior and belongs to the Scheduled Caste category has been ignored. It is submitted that 65 vacancies of TGT (Non-Medical) were advertised for scheduled category, out of these 56 vacancies fell to the share of Scheduled Caste category and the same were required to be filled up on batch-wise basis. It is claimed that in order to give undue advantage to their favourites, the official respondents appointed 51 candidates, who were far junior to the petitioner in age for the purpose of seniority which has not been considered by the official respondents. Whereas, the criteria for being appointed in this category is batch-wise appointment seniority based on age alone was the relevant factor. It is further claimed that in the year 2006, the petitioner was though called for interview for the post of TGT (Non-Medical) under the S.C. category, but he was not appointed despite assurance given by the official respondents. It is lastly claimed that the official respondents had given appointments to the private respondents herein in the year 2009, who were junior to the petitioner ignoring the seniority of the petitioner.

The respondents have filed the reply wherein they have admitted the fact that there were 64 vacancies under SC category TGT (Non-Medical). The name of the petitioner did not figure in the list as he stood at serial No. 82. It was claimed that no doubt the appointments was to be made on batch-wise basis but same was required to be made as per the merit and inter se seniority. It is specifically denied that there is a criteria of age for determining inter se seniority as has been pleaded by the petitioner. On these basis, it is claimed that there is no merit in the petition filed by the petitioner. It is further pleaded that in so far as the appointment of private respondents is concerned, the selections were made strictly on the basis of merit and inter se seniority. The name of the private respondent No. 3 was at merit No. 57, respondent No. 4 at merit No. 51 while the respondent No. 5 was at merit No. 61. It was further claimed that the petitioner is at merit No. 82 having secured 35.83 marks in the interview whereas the last selected candidate as per available quota appointed in Scheduled Caste category was at serial No. 64 (Rakesh Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Ram) who had secured 45.78 marks.

The petitioner despite opportunity has not chosen to file the rejoinder.

I have heard Mr. Varun Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and have also gone through the records carefully and meticulously.

The learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the arguments could not convince this Court that there was any other rule for filling up of the posts in question, than the one on the basis of which the official respondents had filled up those posts. It is specifically pointed out by the official respondents that the age which according to the petitioner was the basis of determining the merit and inter se seniority of the candidates was never a criteria as alleged.

No other point was urged.

In view of above discussion, I find no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any. The parties are left to bear their own costs.