Ambika vs The Managing Director, Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation

Ram Mohan Reddy, J.—After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and examined the provisional select list of candidates for the post of ''Junior Assistant cum DEO'', the short question for decision making is;

"Whether the marks obtained by the candidates in the qualifying examination i.e. the second year pre-university was to be considered for selection to the post of Junior Assistant cum DEO and if so done, whether petitioner is more meritorious than the 4th respondent who is appointed to the said post?"

Learned counsel for the respondent-Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (for short ''BMTC'') submits that the methodology adopted by the BMTC in the matter of ascertaining the merit of the candidates who responded to the invitation as are found in the provisional select list is by reckoning the percentage of marks obtained by each candidate in the second year pre-university examination. Learned counsel for BMTC submits that if the same yardstick is applied to the petitioner, the percentage of marks obtained by her in the second year pre-university, in terms of the marks card Annexure-C is 84.28% while the percentage of marks obtained by the 4th respondent i.e. 83.33%.

Though Smt. Renuka, learned counsel for BMTC submits that since the marks card Annexure-C of the petitioner discloses consolidated marks obtained both in the first and second year totaling to 811, therefore was not considered, in the facts and circumstances is preposterous. It was the duty of the BMTC to have reckoned the total of marks obtained by the petitioner in the second year pre-university which is crystal clear in Annexure-C marks card and having not done so, it must blame itself for the mistake. This apparently is the cause for presenting the petition and therefore requires to be allowed with exemplary cost.

If what sauce is good for the goose, is good for the gander. Therefore, no discrimination could have been made in the case of the petitioner to consider her second year pre-university marks for selection to the post in question. Having not done so, petitioner has made out a case for interference with the appointment of the 4th respondent, admittedly less meritorious than the petitioner.

The 4th respondent though served is unrepresented and absent.

In the result, petition is allowed. The select list of ''Junior Assistant cum DEO'' dated 10.12.2013 vide ''Annexure-H'', insofar as it relates to the appointment of the 4th respondent at Sl. No. 159, and registration No. 510268 with 83.33% of marks against the vacancy meant for 3B-woman category, is quashed.

The respondent BMTC is directed to include the name of the petitioner in the select list Annexure-H at Sl. No. 159 and thereafter to issue a fresh select list followed by an appointment order to the petitioner.

The appointment order issued to the 4th respondent is declared null and void.

At the request of Smt. Renuka, learned counsel for BMTC, cost waived.