PRAMOD KUMAR VERMA Vs. BIRSA AGRICULTURE UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner, being O.B.C. Candidate, has sought for direction upon the respondents for appointment on the post of Farm Manager in term of the Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, by reviewing the panel list, since respondent no. 5 and one Niraj Kumar (now dead) have been appointed who were below in panel of the merit list.

(2.) The brief facts as depicted in the writ application is that in Advertisement No. 1 of 2003, appointments on various posts including the post of Farm Manager have been advertised. The petitioner submitted his application in the prescribed form annexing all the documents and pursuant to the said application, the interview letter was issued to him for appearing in the interview before the Selection Committee. Thereafter, appointment letters have been issued to selected candidates. The petitioner, thereafter, obtained the copy of the select list under the Right to Information Act and from the information obtained, it is found that the petitioner has been considered as a general category candidate, as per Annexure-5 to the writ petition and from perusal of the select list, the petitioner's name has been found at serial no. 11 in the general category, having obtained 61 marks, where respondent No. 5 has got 60 marks and One Niraj Kumar (who is dead now) has got 59 marks. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioner, left with no other alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy, has knocked the door of this Court invoking extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the action of the respondent in not selecting the petitioner in the O.B.C. Category, amounts to arbitrary exercise of power. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the respondents have admitted that the candidature of the petitioner has been considered as Extremely Backward Class, but without any justifiable reason, his case has been considered under general category candidate and therefore, actions of the respondents are violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has referred to decision reported in 2017 (2) JLJR 234 (SC) in the case of Deepa E.V. Vs. Union of India and Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 3609 of 2017, wherein the Honourable Apex Court by distinguishing the judgment rendered in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119, has been pleased to hold that the appellant who has applied under OBC Category by availing age relaxation and also attending the interview under the OBC Category, cannot claim right to be appointed under the General Category. Since the appellant has not challenged the constitutional validity of the proceedings read with Rule 9 of the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 where there is express bar for candidate belonging to SC/ST/OBC who availed relaxation, for being considered for General Category candidate. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to decision in the case of Dr. (Mrs.) Asha Kumari Sinha Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. in W.P.(S) No. 3782 of 2008.