Sailesh Kumar Singh vs Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Limited

N.K. Jain, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to be issued to the respondents to allow him to take part in the Group Discussion and Personal interviews.

The petitioner being Master in Computer Application, in pursuance of advertisement published in daily news-paper Hindu (Anx-1) dt. 14.11.1994 applied for general category as per list III with code 43 out of the two other categories with Codes 41 and 42 for SC and ST respectively and he was called for interview subject to condition on 8.5.95 vide Anx. A-2. On 29.5.95 a legal notice was issued to the Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the test but he was not permitted to take part in Groep Discussion and Personal Interview held on 1.7.95. Hence this write petition under Article 226.

On the other hand in response to the notice issued on 19.6.95, the respondents have filed reply raising preliminary objections that the petitioner has misstated the fact of non-publication of the certain vacancies reserved for other Backward Clases (OBC) whereas Addendum was published in the leading different National News Papers (Anx. R-1). It is also submitted that the petitioner has wrongly stated that the reservation for the candidates of OBC was not notified where in the Interview call it was specifically mentioned that the interview will be subject to your belonging to O.B.C. category. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has made a misstantement that all the vacancies in the General Category have been converted to reserved for O.B.C. whereas only 27 per cent of the vacancies have been reserved for the Other Backward Classes. Therefore the writ petition may be dismissed on preliminary objections alone.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material on record as well as the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioner.

The main contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that no reference of reservation for other Backward Classes has been made initially at the time of publication of advertisement, so the respondents cannot deprive the petitioner due to insertion of this new condition that candidate will be interviewed only if he belongs to O.B.C. He has relied on a decision of the Apex Court rendered in N.T. Bevin Katti, etc., Vs. Karnataka public Service Commission and others,

In the instant case the petitioner applied in general category for the post of Management Trainee in Computer Science/System discipline. The addendum was issued before interview. The petitioner had full knowledge of the fact as in the interview call itself it has been specifically mentioned that it will be subject to his belonging to O.B.C. Further the petitioner was allowed to appeal in the Test, wherein as against 35% for general category he secured only 32% and ranked at 214 in the merit list whereas only 40 candidates were called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview. Therefore, it cannot be said that any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and no interference is called for under Article 226.

The other argument that due to insertion of O.B.C. reservation seats of general category were reduced and petitioner was not allowed to take part in Group Discussion and Personal Interview, is not tenable. Admittedly, due to insertion of O.B.C. reservation, seats of general category were reduced from 10 to 7 and for seven posts 40 candidates as per merit were called and if the three posts were not earmarked for O.B.C. candidates then too the petitioner would not have been called definitely as the petitioner obtained only 32% less than the required percentage and was ranking at 214 in merit list. Therefore, this contention has no substance.

So far as the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is not disputed that a candidate by making an application for a post pursuant to an advertisement does not acquire any right of selection. However if he is otherwise eligible and qualified, he does acquire a limited vested right to the extent of consideration for selection in accordance with rules as they exist on the date of advertisement and not more than that. As stated above, in the instant case the petitioner was considered and allowed to appear in the examination on his representation but he secured only 32% as against required 35% and for seven posts only 40 candidates who were ranking above in the merit list were eligible and called for Group Discussion and Personal Interview whereas the petitioner was ranking at 214 in the merit list. Therefore, the contention advanced by the counsel for the petitioner that he acquired a vested right has no substance and the case cited is not of any help.

It has been next contended that the merit list cannot be said to be right on the ground that in the list the registration number of the petitioner was not correctly shown but the same is not of any help particularly when his Roll Number and his father''s name are correct and tally with his particulars.

In view of what I have discussed above, I am not inclined to interfere in the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition has no force and the same is hereby dismissed.