RAJINDER KUMAR Vs. HARYANA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants have filed this Letters Patent Appeal against judgment dated 23.9.2011, whereby their writ petition was dismissed. Counsel for the appellants submits that vide order dated 3.12.2008, passed in CWP No. 7382 of 1993, the respondents were directed to recast the list of selected candidates by placing reserved category candidates who had obtained marks more than the general category candidates, in the general category and in pursuance to such exercise, the petitioners should have been selected. The respondents have revised the merit list but the appellants have not been selected. It is further contended that as the appellants have obtained 66, 68 and 66 marks, respectively, whereas the last selected candidate has obtained 64 marks, the appellants' names should have been figured in the list of selected candidates. It is also contended that as 300 seats of ALMs are lying vacant, the appellants can be appointed without disturbing the merit or seniority of selected candidates. It is argued that mere omission in the answer-sheet to mention the category does not disentitle the appellants to be considered against the category to which they belong as all requisite documents are available with the respondents. The appellants were selected against backward class posts and, therefore, should have been appointed in accordance with directions issued by this Court.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents submits that as the appellants have failed to point out any error in the impugned judgment much less establish an indefeasible right to appointment, their writ petition was rightly dismissed. It is argued that as the last candidate in the SC-B category obtained 69 marks and the appellants have obtained less marks, they have no right to seek appointment.

(3.) We have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and find no reason whether in fact or in law to interfere.