(1.) THERE has been 361 days' delay in preferring the appeal. Accordingly, an application has been filed for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal. It has been stated that in order to prefer the appeal, permission of the Law department, was a requirement. The same was achieved within three months from the date of the judgment. However, there is nothing to suggest why the appeal was filed after 9 months from receiving the consent of the Law department to prefer the appeal. We think that the appellant was pondering whether, to prefer or not to prefer the appeal and accordingly, there is no explanation for 9 months' delay after obtaining the sanction of the Law department. For the reasons indicated below, we feel that since the Law department had granted permission to prefer appeal, the appeal was ultimately preferred, but without any conviction. In the circumstances, we allow the application for condonation of delay in preferring the appeal.
(2.) ADMIT .
(3.) AN entrance examination was organized for those who wanted to pursue BTC training. Writ petitioner/respondent, a member of the Other Backward Class community appeared in the said entrance examination. According to Rules, the selection committee was required to keep a wait list for each category of examinees. Writ petitioner/respondent was kept in the wait list for OBC category. One Shri Awadhesh Kumar who also belongs to OBC category was kept in the wait list of open/general candidates. The appellants felt that Awadhesh Kumar should have been kept in the wait list of OBC, and accordingly, the respondent/petitioner would be out of the wait list of OBC. This resulted in filing of the writ petition. The writ petition has been allowed holding that the petitioner, who secured the next lower marks than Awadhesh Kumar was correctly listed in the wait list for OBC, and Awadhesh Kumar was correctly listed in the wait list for General candidates, in as much as, it was not shown that any person belonging to General category or any other category obtained better marks than Awdhesh Kumar. Inasmuch as, Awadhesh Kumar received better marks than any other person belonging to any other category, he could only be treated for all practical purposes to be entitled to occupy the first position on merit, and not on the basis of reservation. Awdhesh Kumar, therefore, could only be accommodated in the wait list available for General/open category. There being no dispute that the petitioner obtained highest marks, amongst OBC category, after those who have been selected for appointment, there cannot be any dispute that it was the respondent/petitioner, who alone could be listed in the wait list of OBC category. In the circumstances, there is no scope of interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.