AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present writ petition has been filed under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, praying that the action of the
respondents whereby name of the petitioner was included in the
list of ineligible candidates (Annexure-4) be quashed and a
direction be issued to the respondents to consider the petitioner
as eligible for the recruitment to the post of Driver.
Mr. Arpit Srivastava, the learned Dy. G.C., appearing for
the respondent has drawn attention of this Court to Paras 5 and 6
of the reply. The Paras 5 and 6 of the reply reads as under:-
That the contents of this Para of the writ petition are replied in terms that the petitioner is stand on Sr. No.2456 in the list of ineligible candidates for lack of experience whereas the petitioner is seeing his name at Sr. No.2455. The petitioner in the Representation No.48 dated 6.2.2017
has stated reason his ineligibility as TRANS and mentioning his name at No.2455 whereas the petitioner was declared ineligible for lack of experience. It is submitted from the Application Form No.17694 of the petitioner reveals that petitioner has experience from 1.1.2013 to 30.6.2014 for 1 year six months, from 1.12.2010 to 30.5.2012 one year 6 months and from 1.7.2014 to 30.6.2016 2 years, total five years.
Hence, the person named Girdhariram son of Ramdevaram figured at No.2456 has been included in the list and on the basis of caste certificate inadvertently caste was ST mentioned in place of OBC that too stands rectified.
That the contents of Para No.6 of the writ petition are replied in terms that all the lists of Simulator test are provisional. Hence, any person can be discontinued if he does not fulfill the eligibility criteria and can be added if found eligible."
Relying upon Paras 5 and 6 of the reply reproduced
above, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that
now name of the petitioner has been included in the list of eligible
candidates and he has been held eligible for Stimulator Test and
thus, the petitioner shall be considered for the appointment as
per norms, along with other eligible candidates.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that in view of the reply filed, and the statement made by the
learned counsel for the respondents, the present petition has been
rendered infructuous and may be disposed of, as such.
Ordered accordingly.