AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rajes Kumar, J.—The petitioner applied for the post of physiotherapist in pursuance of the advertisement dated 15.10.2012. The result has been declared on 7.10.2013. The petitioner has not been selected.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is of a O.B.C. category and the perusal of the selection list reveals that no female has been selected under the O.B.C. quota and, therefore, the entire selection is illegal.
The learned standing counsel submitted that as per the Government order dated 26.2.1999. 20% post was reserved for the female. Clauses (2) and (3) provides that the selection made against the reserved quota of female shall be adjusted under the same category. It further provides that the female selected on merits shall be considered against the reserved quota for female. He submitted that 23 candidates have been selected. In this way under the female quota the 20% comes to about four. The perusal of the selection list reveals that more than four females have been selected which includes the O.B.C. candidate also. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has no substance.
I have considered the rival submissions. It would be appropriate to refer the relevant clause of the Government order dated 26.2.1999.
The perusal of the selected list reveals more than four females have been selected which also includes the female of the O.B.C. quota and as per the clauses referred herein above, the female selected under any category may be treated as selected under the female quota.
Therefore, the claim of the petitioner has no substance.
The petition fails and is dismissed.