(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. These six petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ petition seeking direction upon the respondents to appoint them in Grade-IV post in East Sinbhum district under advertisement No. 35/05 dated 21.12.2005. The contention of the petitioners is that they being the member of the Scheduled Tribe community, participated in the exercise conducted vide Adv. No. 35/05 for appointment to Class-IV posts and they were called for verification of their certificates also. Further, though the posts were available, but petitioners have not been appointed. It has been further alleged that the individual petitioners fetched different marks and maximum up to 208 marks was obtained by petitioner Nos. 5 and 6 and rest of them obtained lesser marks then that. The respondents, however, granted grace marks to certain candidates who were appointed, in illegal manner. Petitioners have also stated in para-25 that certain persons who got lesser marks such as 156, 166 and 172 have been appointed while petitioners have been discriminated. They have also alleged that the persons from different districts have been appointed contrary to the policies for appointment on Class-IV post in a particular district. Therefore, the petitioners deserve to be appointed on Class-IV posts.
(2.) According to the learned counsel for the respondents, some of these petitioners got maximum of 208 marks in the merit lists of Scheduled Tribe category. Though, persons who got 208 marks, have been appointed, but as per Clause-6 of the advertisement, priority has been given to those candidates, who are aged than others and since the age of the petitioners are less than the appointed candidates, they have not been appointed. In reply to the contention of para-25 of the writ petition, they have specifically stated that all the five candidate who were appointed, are disabled persons in disabled category and they have obtained 156 marks. These petitioners do not come in the disabled category. It has been further stated that the exercise was conducted under the advertisement No. 35/05 upon direction passed by this Court in W. P. (S) No. 2190 of 2005. As per the direction contained in the said judgment, grace marks were to be given only to daily wage employees, who were already engaged and not to any one else. It has been further stated that life of a panel is only for one year. The call letters dated 07.06.2007 and 24.07.2007 were only for verification of their certificates. The said call letter should not be treated as appointment letter. In such circumstances, according to the respondents, the petitioners have not been able to make out a case of discrimination in the matter of exercise conducted for appointment under the said advertisement in which they participated as Scheduled Tribe Candidates.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has reiterated his submissions and submitted that the respondents were obliged to fill up the available vacancies under the said advertisement which they have failed to do so. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their aforesaid contention relied upon, Annexure-2 being the minutes of the meeting dated 15.05.2007 stating that the all available vacancies were not filled up from the said quota.