L. RAJESHWARI Vs. THE DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the petitioner is that the respondent -ESI Corporation issued an advertisement on 12 -12 -2012 for recruitment of teaching faculty for ESIC, PGIMSR and Medical College, Rajajinagar, Bangalore for the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor on regular basis by direct recruitment. The applications were invited through Online. The number of posts advertised were 10 for Professor, 6 for Associate Professor and 24 for Assistant Professor. For the post of Professor, out of 10 posts, 8 posts were unreserved, nil for SC, 1 post for ST, 1 post for OBC. So far as the post of ST is concerned, the same is shown as backlog vacancy. With a partial modification of the advertisement, the number of posts of Professors which were earlier 10 was reduced to 6. Out of 6 posts, 5 posts were unreserved and 1 post for ST backlog. The petitioner belonging to the ST category, being a qualified doctor applied for the same. Thereafter, the first respondent -Corporation published a list of candidates called for the interview for recruitment for the post of Professor, Associate Professor and Assistant Professor for ESIC, PGIMSR and Medical College, Rajajinagar. In the said list, around 101 candidates were called for the interview for 6 posts. So far as unreserved vacancy of 6 posts called for interview is 100 and unreserved category of ST backlog. The applicant was the only candidate who had applied for the said post under ST category who was called for interview. Thereafter, the list of candidates provisionally selected was announced. The petitioner was not selected. It is her case that only to accommodate the 4th respondent, who belongs to the General Category, she was not selected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 264 of 2013 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the application was rejected. Hence, the present petition. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is bad in law and liable to be set aside. He contends that though petitioner belongs to ST category and she being the only person from the said category, requires to be appointed. The post having been reserved for ST category and she fulfilling all the qualifications, there are mala fides in rejecting her at the stage of interview and converting the same to a general category. The Tribunal has committed an error while passing the impugned order.

(2.) THE petitioner belongs to a ST category and applied for the said post. However, the Tribunal considering the plea of the petitioner and having taken note of the materials on record and being satisfied, was of the view that the candidates having been selected purely on merit, the selected candidates were offered appointments and are now holding the said posts. The contention of the petitioner that there is an error in not marking the said post as backlog vacancy could have been challenged on the advertisement notice itself. Having accepted the same and participated in the interview, she cannot now turn around and question the very advertisement.