S SUMATHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At first flush, it appears that the contention urged is one of substance and the order of the Tribunal was erroneously arrived at. Thankfully, only the reason given in support of the order appears erroneous and n6t the order itself.

(2.) The writ petitioner applied as an other Backward Classes (OBC) candidate for the post of postal assistant. The relevant authorities invited applications for two posts, one in the general category and one from OBC applicants. The relevant recruitment rules provided that the upper age limit for OBC candidates was relaxable by three years where the outside age limit had been fixed at 25 years for other candidates. There was no relaxation for OBC candidates in respect of educational or other desired qualifications.

(3.) The two posts were filled up in or about the year 2000, though the date is of no relevance in the ultimate analysis. The petitioner made a belated representation before the authorities that the candidate selected from among the OBC applicants had, in fact, stood first in the combined merit list and deserved appointment on merit rather than by reservation. The petitioner who was placed second in the merit list of OBC candidates, thus, claimed to be entitled to appointment in the reserved category.