Ravi Kumar Sharma vs Principal Secretary And Ors

Sanjeev Kumar, J

1 In this petition, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following relief(s):

(i) Issue a Writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of Certiorari by quashing the selection of private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 for the posts of

Driver in Subordinate Courts of Jammu Division made by respondent No.1 in terms of Select List dated 04.02.2018; and.

(ii) Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, commanding the official respondents to select and appoint the petitioner

against the post of Driver in Subordinate Courts of Jammu Division under open merit category strictly in terms of Advertisement Notice dated

20.02.2014â€​.

2 The case of the petitioner, as projected by him in his petition, is that an Advertisement Notice bearing No. 986 dated 20.02.2014 came to be issued

by respondent No.1, whereby and whereunder the applications were invited from amongst the eligible candidates for making selection/ appointment to

the various posts, including the posts of Driver under open merit category in Jammu Division. It is submitted that as per the said Advertisement notice,

the required qualification for the posts of Driver was prescribed as Matric pass with valid LMV Driving licence. It is further submitted that the

petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Driver under the open merit category. Thereafter, respondent No.4, after scrutinizing the application

forms received for the posts of Driver, vide Notification dated 08.02.2018, directed the candidates, who were shortlisted, to appear in the interview.

Subsequently, upon conducting the interview of the shortlisted candidates, respondent No.1 issued a select list bearing No.1104 dated 04.12.2018 in

terms whereof, private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were selected against the posts of Driver. However, the petitioner was kept in the waiting list for

Jammu Division vide order bearing No.1105 dated 04.12.2018.

Mr Achal Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned select list dated 04.12.2018, insofar as it pertains to

the respondent No.5 and 6 is unsustainable in law as the same is not based upon the merit. It is submitted that the impugned select list is required to be

quashed on the ground that the Advertisement notice was issued for filling up of two posts of Driver under open merit category, but, at the time of

selection, respondent No.1 selected only one candidate under open merit Category thereby filling the other post from OBC category. It is submitted

that though the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.5, yet the respondents have selected respondent No.5, thereby ignoring the merit

of the petitioner.

Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 have opposed the writ petition by filing objections. In their objections, they have submitted that in terms of Notification

dated 20.02.2014, amongst others, two posts of Driver in Jammu Division under open merit category came to be advertised and pursuant to the said

Notification, select list of the candidates for the said posts was issued vide order dated 04.12.2018. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 were selected under open

merit category. It is denied that respondent No.6 was selected under OBC category. As a matter of fact, both the posts came to be filled up under

open merit category. It is also submitted that though respondent No.6 had applied as OSC category candidate, however, he was considered and

selected under the General Category on the basis of his merit obtained by him in aggregate as per the criteria laid down by the Selection Committee.

Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that respondent No.6 has been selected under OBC category is misplaced and contrary to the facts. It is

submitted that as per the consolidated merit wise list of the candidates, respondent No.6 has obtained 38 points in aggregate and respondent No.5 has

obtained 37 points, whereas, the petitioner has obtained only 36.5 points. It is, thus, submitted that respondent Nos. 5 and 6 have been selected against

two posts of drivers under open merit category on the basis of their merit and the petitioner has been placed in the waiting list being next in the order

of merit.

5 We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

6 In order to appreciate the controversy in issue, certain undisputed facts need to be noticed.

7 Undoubtedly, the two posts of driver were notified under open merit category. Amongst others, the petitioner and respondent Nos.5 and 6 applied

for the said posts. The selection process was completed and upon approval of the recommendations of the Selection Committee, respondent Nos.5

and 6 came to be selected under open merit category, whereas the petitioner was placed in the waiting list on the basis of his merit. As is evident from

the record, respondent No.6 obtained 38 points in aggregate and respondent No.5 obtained 37 points, whereas the petitioner obtained only 36.5 points.

The said position is clear from the consolidated merit wise list of the candidates, who had appeared in the interview for the posts of drivers in Jammu

Division pursuant to an Advertisement Notice dated 20.02.2014.

8 It appears that, while preparing the consolidated merit wise list of the candidates, who had appeared in the interview for the said posts, respondent

No.6 was shown to have obtained 38 marks in aggregate and his category was indicated as ‘OBC’. He, however, was selected in the General

category because of his merit. However, the petitioner could not secure sufficient marks to be placed in the select list and, therefore, was placed in

the waiting list. Therefore, the plea of the petitioner that that he is more meritorious than respondent No.5 is meritless and deserves to be rejected.

9 The plea of the petitioner that respondent No.6 has been selected under OBC category, is also not correct, for the reason that though he belonged to

OSC category and had applied under the said category, yet he was considered and selected under open merit category on the basis of his merit

obtained by him as per the criteria laid down by the Selection Committee. Otherwise also, it is well settled that the general category vacancies in

public employment is open to all including aspirants belonging to reserved categories. The Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and

another vs. State of U.P. and others; (2010) 3 SCC 119 has held that, if a person belonging to reserved category is selected on the basis of his merit in

open competition along with general category candidates, then he will be selected towards general category posts. Thus, there is no law prescribing

reservation for general category candidates in public employment and, therefore, there could not arise any question against the reserved category

candidates occupying or being selected against general category posts because of their merit.

10 In view of above enunciation of law and the undisputed facts of the present case, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same along

with connected CMs is, accordingly, dismissed.