RAVI KUMAR SHARMA Vs. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner has sought the indulgence of this Court in granting him the following relief(s):

(2.) The case of the petitioner, as projected by him in his petition, is that an Advertisement Notice bearing No. 986 dated 20.02.2014 came to be issued by respondent No.1, whereby and whereunder the applications were invited from amongst the eligible candidates for making selection/appointment to the various posts, including the posts of Driver under open merit category in Jammu Division. It is submitted that as per the said Advertisement notice, the required qualification for the posts of Driver was prescribed as Matric pass with valid LMV Driving licence. It is further submitted that the petitioner being eligible applied for the post of Driver under the open merit category. Thereafter, respondent No.4, after scrutinizing the application forms received for the posts of Driver, vide Notification dated 08.02.2018, directed the candidates, who were shortlisted, to appear in the interview. Subsequently, upon conducting the interview of the shortlisted candidates, respondent No.1 issued a select list bearing No.1104 dated 04.12.2018 in terms whereof, private respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were selected against the posts of Driver. However, the petitioner was kept in the waiting list for Jammu Division vide order bearing No.1105 dated 04.12.2018.

(3.) Mr Achal Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the impugned select list dated 04.12.2018, insofar as it pertains to the respondent No.5 and 6 is unsustainable in law as the same is not based upon the merit. It is submitted that the impugned select list is required to be quashed on the ground that the Advertisement notice was issued for filling up of two posts of Driver under open merit category, but, at the time of selection, respondent No.1 selected only one candidate under open merit Category thereby filling the other post from OBC category. It is submitted that though the petitioner was more meritorious than respondent No.5, yet the respondents have selected respondent No.5, thereby ignoring the merit of the petitioner.