AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
The applicant, herein, is an OBC candidate, who has applied for recruitment on the regular post of Non-Executive (Post Code - RNE13) against an advertisement issued by respondents, DMRC, on 14.12.2019. A total of 4 vacancies were notified, out of which 3 were UR category and 1 was OBC category. The applicant, herein, applied under OBC category.
The written Exam Results were declared subsequently on 20.02.2020. The applicant was shortlisted under OBC category. Later on, respondents DMRC issued a revised shortlist on 27.07.2020, wherein it was also indicated that due to COVID-19 crisis and as DMRC activities have reduced, and as a result thereof, the total number of vacancies was reduced from 4 to 3, and all these 3 vacancies are of UR categories. The applicant had secured lesser marks as compared to the cut off for the General (UR) category. Accordingly, the applicant's name was taken out of the shortlist.
Feeling aggrieved, the applicant preferred the instant OA. Discrimination was alleged and it was pleaded that OBC candidates needs to be represented irrespective of reduction of vacancies.
It was brought out by respondents that this was a fresh recruitment as per post based roster which was in force in accordance with the judgement dated 10.02.1995 in R.K. Sabarwal And Ors vs. State of Punjab And Ors by Hon'ble Apex Court, wherein roster points indicate that next three vacancies belong to General category only. Accordingly, the OBC candidate does not have any legal basis to claim any reservation or discrimination on account of leaving out of his name. It was brought out that he had secured lesser marks as compared to the three UR category candidates presently shortlisted. DMRC had also indicated in the advertisement that vacancies are tentative and can be increased/decreased.
Matter has been heard at length. Ms. Pooja Tandon, learned counsel represented the applicant. Sh. V.S.R. Krishna, learned counsel represented the respondents.
The respondents DMRC are well within their rights to increase or decrease the vacancies in keeping with their requirements.
The post based roster scheme was brought into place in accordance with judgement in R K Sabarwal (supra), as the basis to provide an equitable distribution as per prescribed percentage of reservation granted to OBC, SC and ST candidates on a running basis, and once the roster points indicate that next three vacancies in this post belong to general category, the recruitment has to be necessarily done as per merit order, irrespective of which community the candidate belongs.
The three shortlisted candidates have secured more marks as compared to the applicant. The applicant does not appear in this merit order. The pleas of discrimination are without any substance.
The applicant had also pleaded that if any of the three short listed candidate does not join, he needs to be given the offer of appointment as he was shortlisted earlier on 20.2.2020, is also not acceptable.
In such an event, firstly it is for DMRC to decide whether they wish to operate the waiting list in keeping with their requirements, and if so, it has necessarily to be as per the merit order under UR category, as the vacancy belongs to UR category. It is clarified here that while preparing this merit order, the community of candidate is immaterial and the only thing relevant is marks.
Accordingly, this plea of applicant shall have merit only if, this applicant happens to be the next candidate as per the merit order for UR category. The applicant has not made any such claim. It is noted here that the cutoff for UR category as per the shortlist, is 67.48 out of 100 marks whereas the cutoff for OBC category is 61.837 out of 100 marks and there may be some other candidates who secured marks between 67.48 and 61.837 and they shall have claim for this merit list for UR.
In view of foregoing, there is no merit in the contentions of the applicant. OA stands dismissed, being devoid of merit. No order as to costs.