VIKAS KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied for the post of constable under the OBC category, while the respondents No. 4 and 5, who too belonged to OBC category, applied under the category of OBC reserved for Antodaya and IRDP categories. The relative marks obtained by the parties are as under:-

(2.) It appears that respondent No. 4, who admittedly, had secured higher marks than the petitioner was considered for the post of OBC (IRDP) category, but then in view of his higher percentage, he was considered against the IRDP in general OBC category and respondent No. 5 who had obtained only 68.67% marks came to be appointed in the OBC (IRDP) category. The grievance of the petitioner is that the candidature of respondent No. 5 could not have been considered against the post of OBC (IRDP) category because that slot had already been occupied by respondent No. 4, as admittedly respondent No. 4 had applied under the OBC (IRDP) category and not in OBC (Un-reserved) category.

(3.) The official respondents in their reply filed to the petition contended that both the respondents No. 4 and 5 belong to the OBC (IRDP) category and because the respondent No. 4 secured 71.83 marks, his candidature was considered against OBC (Un-reserved) post as per the rules of reservation and instructions of the government. The rules provide that in case a person from the reserved category secures more marks from the candidates of unreserved category, the candidature of such candidate could be considered against the unreserved post. The petitioner had secured 71.33% marks, which was less than the marks secured by respondent No. 4 and therefore he could not be selected against the OBC (unreserved) category, whereas the respondent No. 5 though had secured less marks than the petitioner, but he was selected against the OBC (IRDP) category and not against OBC (unreserved) category.