SUBHAYA PRUSTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 27.8.2013 issued by the authority vide Annexure-4 rejecting his candidature for enrollment into Assam Rifles for Electrical Trade on the plea "Found low-in-merit against your State". The factual matrix of the case in hand is that an advertisement was published in employment news by the Director General Assam Rifles, Silong for recruitment in Assam Rifles for various posts. So far as State of Orissa is concerned, one post in Electrical Trade has been advertised and the recruitment rally was scheduled to be held at Dimapur (Nagaland), NRS-Dimapur and Lokhra (Assam). The advertisement also indicates that the application should reach by 8.9.2012 and application received beyond that date shall not be entertained. The petitioner having got requisite qualification as per Clause-7 and Clause-9 of the advertisement for electrical trade, i.e. 10th class pass and possesses ITI certificate, applied for the said post. As per Clause-14, the written test will consist of only OMR based objective type multiple choice question to be answered using a pen. The question paper will be of 100 marks. Clause 16 of the advertisement provided that candidates who qualify in all respect will be placed in merit list depending upon the category wise vacancies allotted to the States and instruction to join the training centre or enrolment will be issued on the basis of the merit list. The petitioner was the only candidate from the State of Orissa for the one post in electrical trade reserved for Orissa who submitted his application for the post of electrician on 27.7.2012 pursuant to the advertisement. Accordingly, he has been called on 25.8.2012 to report before the Presiding Officer Recruitment and Selection Board at Lokhra (Assam) on 25.9.2012 along with the original documents. He appeared the written test conducted on 25.9.2012 and having qualified vide letter dated 26.10.2012 in Annexure-3 was called upon to report for medical examination on 26.10.2012 at Assam Rifles Composite Hospital, Shokhubi, Dimapur in the State of Nagaland. In response to the same, petitioner appeared in the medical test. But on 27.8.2013 he has been issued with an order vide Annexure-4 in his home address at R.M. Patna in the district of Puri that his candidature has been rejected due to the reason "found low-in-merit against your State". Hence this application.

(2.) Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the petitioner being the only candidate from the State of Orissa for single post of electrician reserved for the State of Orissa, there is no question of determination of comparative merits between the parties and rejection of his candidature is contrary to the advertisement issued in Annexure-1. It is stated that once the petitioner qualified in the written test and physical efficiency test and was found medically fit for such appointment, denial or rejection of his candidature on the plea of "low in merit against your State" cannot sustain in the eye of law. It is further urged that the plea of rejection of candidature is contrary to the terms of the advertisement issued in Annexure-1. The qualitative requirement mentioned in Clause-9 of the advertisement only stipulates the educational qualification. It is stated that since the petitioner has got requisite qualification, he has been called to appear in the test as per the advertisement itself. The determination of low in merit on the basis of percentage of marks has not been indicated in the advertisement itself. Apart from the same, it is urged that since all the correspondences have been made in the home address of the petitioner in the district of Puri, Orissa, the cause of action has arisen within State of Orissa, therefore this Court has got jurisdiction to entertain this application. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgments in Nawal Kishore Sharma v. Union of India and others, 2014 AIR(SC) 3607, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and others, 2009 3 SCC 227 and K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and another, 2008 AIR(SC) 1470.

(3.) Mr. A. Mohanty, learned counsel and Mr. L. Jena, learned counsel have appeared for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 separately, but they have relied upon the composite counter-affidavit filed by opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 and state that the final selection of the candidates was made on the basis of the merit in each category. The cut-off percentage of marks for passing in unreserved/general/ex-serviceman categories was 35% and the cut-off percentages of marks for passing in reserved categories SC/ST and OBC was 33%. It is stated that the petitioner secured only 33% of marks and though the petitioner was declared pass in OBC category, he did not qualify as an unreserved candidate for the post advertised as he could not meet the eligibility criteria for the said category. It is further stated that this writ petition is not maintainable before this Court as this Court has lacked territorial jurisdiction to hear the matter. Therefore, they seek for dismissal of the writ petition.