SUBHAM DOBHAL vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS

Mr. C.D. Bahuguna, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Anup Kumar Verma, Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that he does not want to press

prayer no. I and II and he wants to press prayer no. III and IV only in this writ petition. He has further submitted that he does not want to press

present writ petition against respondents no. 5, 7 to 9 and 11, therefore, he seeks permission to delete the name of respondents no. 5, 7 to 9 and 11

from the array of parties.Â

Brief facts of the present case are that Uttarkhand Board of Technical Education, Dehradun issued an advertisement dated 10.09.2014 inviting

applications for filling up 177 posts of Clerk and 93 posts of Stenographer. Petitioner fulfilling the all eligibility criteria applied for the post of Clerk

under General category. Petitioner qualified the written and typing test. Petitioner secured 108.25 mark whereas the cut off marks for the General

category candidate was 109. Respondents filled up 156 posts of Clerk out of 177 posts and 21 posts remained unfilled. Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two OBC category candidates, namely Sanoj Kumar and Saurabh Rana, securing more marks than

petitioner, have been selected under General Category, which is not permissible under the law. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on

the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Deepa EV Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2017 (12) SCC 680.Â

Since petitioner has not pressed the writ petition against respondents no. 5 to 11, therefore, this argument is not available to the petitioner.

Otherwise also, it is an admitted case of the petitioner that petitioner secured less mark i.e. than the cut off mark i.e. 109 under General category.

Even if OBC Category candidates selected under General category are placed under OBC category, even then he is not eligible to be appointed, as he

has not secured cut off mark or more than that.

So far as judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court is concerned, the fact of the present case is totally different from that. In the case of Deepa E.V.

(supra), appellant availing age relaxation under OBC category sought employment under General category on the ground that she had secured more

cut off mark than General category cut off mark. In those circumstances, Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the appeal and held that the appellant,

who has applied under OBC category by availing age relaxation, cannot claim right to be appointed under the General Category.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that 3 OBC category candidates and 2 ST category candidates had been selected though

they had secured less mark than the petitioner. Â

So far as this argument of petitioner is concerned, it is settled position of law that reserved category candidates are selected against the posts

reserved for them and there are different cut off mark for each category.Â

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that respondents have not prepared any waiting list and 21 posts are still lying vacant.Â

I do not find any force in this submission also. It is the prerogative of the Department to prepare waiting list. The respondents have mentioned cut

off for each category. The candidates, who had secured cut off mark or more, have been selected and those, who had secured less than cut off mark,

have not been selected. As a result, 21 posts remained unfilled. I do not find any illegality or arbitrariness in the action of respondents.Â

In view of the above discussion, I do not find any merit in the petition. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.Â