Bal Krishna vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri S. P. Singh learned Counsel for the High Court.

The Petitioner has questioned the proceedings in relation to the selection on the post of Assistant Review Officer in the High Court for the year 2006. Learned Counsel contends that no minimum criteria was fixed as a result whereof the Petitioner who belongs to the Scheduled Caste Category and is also an ex-serviceman has been eliminated arbitrarily.

Sri S. P. Singh for the High Court submits that the committee duly constituted by the Hon''ble The Chief Justice for conducting such examinations in its meeting resolved that in order to maintain the minimum of efficiency keeping in view the provisions of Article 335 of the Constitution of India, the minimum qualifying marks by each category of candidates would be as follows:

(i) General Category 73 Marks in aggregate.

(ii) O.B.C. Category 66 Marks in aggregate.

(iii) S.C./S.T. Category 59 Marks in aggregate.

The Petitioner has admittedly obtained 55 marks as disclosed in the counter-affidavit.

Learned Counsel contends that horizontal reservation for ex-service man has not been provided nor any separate merit has been maintained so that the Petitioner could possibly claim against the reserved post.

The aforesaid argument cannot be accepted inasmuch as reservation which is granted horizontally requires the minimum percentage of marks to be obtained by a candidate in his category in order to make him eligible to qualify for the said post.

In the instant case the Petitioner has admittedly obtained only 55 marks whereas the qualifying marks for Scheduled Castes as fixed by the Committee is 59. In view of this the horizontal reservation would not be available to the Petitioner. In such a situation the issue raised has to be answered in the negative.

The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.