NEEL KAMAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition is filed in the matter of selection for the post of Junior Assistant against the vacancies published vide advertisement dtd. 10/12/2013 and against the impugned order dtd. 27/2/2019 passed by the respondents. The present petition was amended with following prayers:-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one advertisement dtd. 10/12/2013 was issued for recruitment on various post of non-teaching staff, including that of Junior Assistant. Later, by way of corrigendum, the post of Junior Assistant/Stenographer were increased from 4 to 11 out of which 3 posts were reserved for OBC candidates and 1 for exservicemen. The petitioner applied for the post of Junior Assistant under OBC category. He cleared screening test, written test and the trade test. He was called for interview, which was held on 5/3/2014, however, his result was not declared. The respondents issued a list of successful candidates and also a waiting list on 26/5/2014. It is further submitted that since there was no minimum marks prescribed in the advertisement for interview or in aggregate, it cannot be presumed that applicant had failed. The petitioner had applied under the category of OBC wherein, as per the revised advertisement, three vacancies were available. As per the knowledge and submissions of the petitioner, only two seats qua OBC were filled. It is also submitted that the waiting list prepared for the Lower Ministerial Post wrongly includes names of 5 candidates who applied for and interviewed for the post of Accountant, which is a Ministerial Higher Post. In support of the contention, he has relied upon the advertisement and has submitted that there were different qualifications for the post of Ministerial Higher Superintendent/Accountant and Junior Assistant/Stenographer. As per the petitioner, if any candidate who wished to apply for more than one post, as per the advertisement, was required to apply separately for each post in the prescribed manner.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon Result Of Interview (document marked as Annexure-R/2), which was submitted by the respondents with their reply. He submitted that it is an admitted fact that only two people were selected under the OBC category and the third post remain vacant, as per respondents own admission that no other candidate was found suitable. He submitted that he has secured 45 marks in the OBC category and as per him he stood at serial no.3 and therefore, he is entitled for the said post in terms of the advertisement and as per results specified in Annexure-R/2. He further submitted that the decision taken by the Board of Governors on 21/3/2014 is dehors the statutory rules and the advertisement as the respondents have offered Lower Ministerial post to applicants seeking appointment in Higher Ministerial post and as per him, the vacant OBC post was also fulfilled by such applicants even though, as per requirement of the advertisement, they have not filled the application separately for different posts in the prescribed manner. He submitted that in the light of same he has preferred the present petition and this Court, vide order dtd. 2/7/2014, has clearly specified that appointment of respondents No.4 to 10, would be subject to outcome of the petition.