ANIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming therein the following substantial relief:

(2.) THE petitioner claims himself to be aggrieved by the action of the official respondents whereby the junior persons to the petitioner have been appointed as TGT (Non -Medical), whereas, the petitioner, who is senior and belongs to the Scheduled Caste category has been ignored. It is submitted that 65 vacancies of TGT (Non -Medical) were advertised for scheduled category, out of these 56 vacancies fell to the share of Scheduled Caste category and the same were required to be filled up on batch -wise basis. It is claimed that in order to give undue advantage to their favourites, the official respondents appointed 51 candidates, who were far junior to the petitioner in age for the purpose of seniority which has not been considered by the official respondents. Whereas, the criteria for being appointed in this category is batch -wise appointment seniority based on age alone was the relevant factor. It is further claimed that in the year 2006, the petitioner was though called for interview for the post of TGT (Non -Medical) under the S.C. category, but he was not appointed despite assurance given by the official respondents. It is lastly claimed that the official respondents had given appointments to the private respondents herein in the year 2009, who were junior to the petitioner ignoring the seniority of the petitioner.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Varun Chandel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Verma, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 and 2 and have also gone through the records carefully and meticulously.