BODDU SATYANARAYANA Vs. RASHTRIYA ISPAT NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 published a notification on 12.12.2008 inviting applications for selection of candidates for various posts mentioned therein. The age limit stipulated therein is 18 to 25 years for general candidates, relaxed to the extent of 30 years for the candidates belonging to S.C. and ST. category and 28 years for O.B.C. candidates. The petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category and he is aged 27 years. He submitted his application.

(2.) A written test was conducted for all the candidates. The petitioner was qualified therein and he was called for interview on 25.07.1999. He secured 64.20 marks in all. However, he was not selected, whereas respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who belong to the same category, but secured less number of marks than the petitioner, were selected. The petitioner challenges the action of respondeat Nos. 1 to 3 in not selecting him for the post of Junior Trainee (Electrical). He contends that the action of respondent Nos. 1 to 3 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 filed a counter-affidavit. They admit that the petitioner secured 64.20 marks and that respondent Nos. 4 to 7, who too belong to O.B.C. category, secured less number of marks. It is, however, stated that respondent Nos. 4 to 7 were selected against unreserved vacancies on the basis of their performance and that the only post of Junior Trainee (Electrical), reserved in favour of O.B.C. category has been filled by a candidate from the category of Ex-Servicemen. It is also stated that the Government of India issued instructions to the effect that the candidates who belong to reserved category of S.C., ST. and O.B.C. can be considered against the unreserved vacancies only in case they have not availed the benefit of any relaxation of age or educational qualifications. According to them, the petitioner is not eligible to apply but for the relaxation of age limit and in that view of the matter, he was not considered against an unreserved vacancy. Heard Sri S.V.S. Ravi Kiran, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Ravinder Rao, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.