SHAM KRISHNA B Vs. AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a candidate, who submitted application for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) , under the 1 st respondent - Airport Authority of India, pursuant to Ext.P1 notification. He is aggrieved by the denial of appointment to him on account of an erroneous preparation of merit list.

(2.) The 1st respondent issued Ext.P1 notification in the year 2013, inviting applications for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) , in the scale of pay of Rs.12500-28500. The number of posts notified was 244 + 1 with the break up of 122 for unreserved, 78 for OBC, 22 for SC and 22 + 1 for ST. The qualification prescribed was:

(3.) Ext.P6 is the order issued by the Government of India in implementation of the judgement in the case of R.K.Sabharwal v. State of Punjab. Annexure II of that office memorandum provides for the model roster of reservation with reference to post of direct recruitment on All India basis by open competition. Petitioner submits that instead of applying that roster, the respondents prepared the list in such a manner that they placed all the 122 candidates who got the highest marks in the top of the list in the unreserved category and only after including the first 122 in the unreserved list the lists for reserved post were prepared. In that process the candidates who applied for appointment under reserved category and who got higher marks got included in the unreserved list to the detriment of the unreserved candidates as well as contrary to the principles of reservation and Annexure II to Ext.P6.