Tarsem Kumar vs State Ors

Petitioner belonging to the Ex-serviceman category had applied for the post of driver under State/Division/District Cadre pursuant to Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2005 dated 11.10.2005. The qualification prescribed for the post of driver in terms of the advertisement notice for State cadre was matriculate having Hill driving light/medium and Heavy Vehicle license and for Division and District Cadre the qualification prescribed was Middle pass possessing Hill driving license for driving HMV/LMV. The petitioner being possessed the requisite qualification and holding a valid driving license applied for the post of driver under the Ex-serviceman category.

The respondents issued an interview call to the petitioner vide No. SSB/Div/J/2006/2761-6207 dated 27.04.2006 for the post of driver State Cadre and his driving test as well as the interview was held on 26.05.2006.

The petitioner is aggrieved of the select list for the post of driver State/Division/District Cadre issued by the respondents in newspaper 'Daily Excelsior' on 19.12.2006.

The grievance of the petitioner is that he had applied under the Ex-serviceman category and was to be considered in the Ex-serviceman category but the respondents had not selected people under the Ex-serviceman category, thus, had denied consideration for the post of driver in the said category. Further it is submitted that the respondents have not adhered to the reservation rules for the Ex-serviceman category and as such, did not select anybody in the said category. The petitioner has also stated that he was not aware of criteria adopted for the selection and they have selected the private respondents in violation of the horizontal reservation to be provided for the Ex-servicemen, therefore, the selection is bad and is required to be set aside.

During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner has deleted private respondent Nos. 6 to 21 and as such, has now pressed claim only against respondent Nos. 22 & 23.

The respondents have filed their objections and stated that the petitioner was considered under the Ex-serviceman category and he participated in the selection process which included driving test and viva voce. However, the petitioner obtained only 50.33 points in the said category whereas the last selected candidate under the Ex-serviceman/Open Merit Category obtained 52.33 points. Thus, respondent No. 22, who obtained 61.33 points in Ex-serviceman/Open Merit Category and respondent No. 23 obtained 52.33 points in the said category were selected and the petitioner being lesser in merit could not be selected for the post of driver in Open Merit in the said category. The respondents have specifically stated that the reservation as envisaged under the Reservation Rules in favour of the Ex-serviceman category were duly provided and as such, respondent Nos. 22 & 23 being meritorious were selected as Ex-servicemen in Open Merit Category. Respondents have further stated that the selection was made on the following criteria, it was uniformly apply to all:

i.

Weightage to basic qualification

:

60 pts.

ii.

. Experience i.e. 1 Pt. for one year subject to maximum of 15 pts.

:

15 pts.

iii.

Weightage to 10+2 and above

Qualification

:

05 pts.

iv.

Viva voce

:

20 pts.

It is submitted that the petitioner had to compete with other Ex-servicemen for selection to the post of driver and having participated in the selection, the petitioner could not be selected because of his low merit.

From perusal of the record, it is apparent that in terms of the Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2005 dated 11.10.2005 read with Corrigendum dated 29.10.2005, 57 posts of driver were notified by the Service Selection Board for State Cadre on the following break up:

OM

=

33

SC

=

05

ST

=

05

RBA

=

12

ALC

=

02

Total

=

57

On the basis of the horizontal and applying 6% reservation in favour of the Ex-servicemen, 3 posts were earmarked for Ex-serviceman category and accordingly, 3 people, Dewan Chand, Kuldeep Kumar Raina and Ravi Kumar were appointed as drivers in the Ex-serviceman category but owing to his lesser merit, the petitioner could not make the grade. It is further stated by the respondents that since in terms of Advertisement Notice No. 05 of 2005 dated 11.10.2005, the Service Selection Board had also notified the post of driver in the Divisional and District Cadre but since the total number of posts in both these cadres were less than 30, as such, no posts were earmarked for the Ex-serviceman category by applying 6% horizontal reservation.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussion, the petitioner having participated in the selection process and could not be selected because of his lower merit, this petition is without any merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

Record be returned back to the learned Deputy Advocate General.