AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ravi Malimath, J.—The case of the petitioner is that he had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Civil) with the respondent-Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board in response to the recruitment notification issued by the respondent. The case of the petitioner is that he has secured an aggregate percentage of 54.36% and the cutoff marks of the candidates in the provisional selection list is 50.27%. Therefore, the present writ petition seeking to question the provisional selection list vide Annexure-D, dated 08.04.2010.
Thereafter, by an application the writ petition was amended, seeking to add additional grounds and an additional prayer. In terms of the additional prayer, the petitioner sought to question the final selection list published by the respondents dated 12.05.2010, vide Annexure-G to the writ petition. The same was allowed. Consequently, respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were added on as respondents to the writ petition, since they were selected in terms of Annexure-G.
The case sought to be made out by the petitioner is that the petitioner ought to have been selected under the General Merit (Rural) Category. However, he has been considered under the General Merit Category alone. That this is the flaw committed by the respondents. That if the petitioner was considered in the General Merit (Rural) Category, as he has obtained a higher percentage of marks, he would necessarily have to be appointed in preference to respondent Nos. 3 to 9.
On the other hand, Shri. K.T. Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent-Board defends the impugned action. He contends that the plea of the petitioner cannot be accepted. That the selection was made on the basis that the petitioner is a General Merit Candidate and that there is no material to show that he falls under the General Merit (Rural) Category. Under these circumstances, considering his candidature as General Merit (Rural) Category does not arise. In terms of the entitlement, he has been considered as a General Merit Candidate. Hence, there is no error in the impugned order. That the writ petition be dismissed.
Shri. S.V. Shastri, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 9 supports the said contentions. Counsel for R8 is absent. The rest of the respondents are served and unrepresented.
On hearing learned counsels, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in the writ petition.
The plea of the petitioner is that he has secured more marks and hence he should have been appointed as a General Merit (Rural) Candidate. That the cut off marks of General Merit (Rural) Candidates selected are far less than the marks obtained by the petitioner. Therefore, it is an abject failure on the part of the respondent.
Annexure-C is the document issued by the Special Tahsildar, dated 01.09.2007, that the petitioner belongs to the General Merit Category. In the face of such a certificate the respondent could not have considered him as General Merit (Rural) Candidate. Even assuming the plea of the petitioner that he falls under the General Merit (Rural) Category, he would necessarily have to show appropriate material to substantiate the same. He has failed to do so. No submissions are forthcoming to support him as a General Merit (Rural) candidate. Apparently, it has only remained a contention without any material. Not only that, in the face of Annexure-C the petitioner cannot be treated as any other category other than a General Merit Candidate. It is undisputed that if he is considered as a General Merit Candidate he would not qualify for the appointment.
Under these circumstances, I do not find any merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed. Rule discharged.