AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.B. Bajanthri, J.—The petitioner is one of the candidates for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in pursuance of the notification dated 29.4.2013. His candidature was not considered under OBC Category having regard to the merit. Thereafter, he had submitted representation to consider his candidature under G.M. Category. The respondents have issued a communication dated 2.1.2014 by which candidature of the petitioner under G.M. category is rejected. Aggrieved by the communication dated 2.1.2014 vide Annexure-"A" the petitioner has presented this petition.
The first respondent issued a notification on 29.4.2013 to fill up 60 vacancies of Assistant Loco Pilot from the eligible land loser candidates and insofar as SC/ST candidates are concerned it was made clear that from other than land losers. In the notification, it was also indicated that the vacancies notified are provisional and may vary as per the need of KRCL. The petitioner is one of the candidate for the post of Assistant Loco Pilot Selection in pursuance of the notification dated 29.4.2013 and he had claimed his candidature under OBC Category. Among others, the petitioner participated in the written examination and also for psychological aptitude test and he had secured 43% marks. Having regard to the cut off marks for the OBC Category, the person selected had secured 67% marks whereas the petitioner had secured 43% marks in the written examination. Therefore, his candidature was not considered for further selection process. Aggrieved by the non-consideration of the petitioner''s name under General Category for selection to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot he has submitted a representation to consider his grievance on 8.12.2013. In pursuance of the same the respondent No. 2 issued a communication stating that the petitioner''s name has been considered under OBC category. Having regard to the merit of the petitioner it is stated that he is not qualified under OBC category and further question of relaxed standard is not permissible and it has been categorically stated that the petitioner is not qualified for the general category. The petitioner aggrieved by the communication questioned the communication dated 2.1.2014 vide Annexure-"A" and consequently, sought for a direction to consider his candidature for selection to the post of Asst. Loco Pilot under General category and to appoint him to the said post.
The petitioner in support of the relief contended that his candidature is required to be considered both under OBC as well as in General Merit. He has appeared for written test and psychological aptitude test and he has qualified in both the tests. However, he has not been called for medical examination. The reason assigned by the respondents is that petitioner is not qualified under OBC category. The petitioner cited decision of the Apex Court which is reported in Ravinder Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Others, contending that if a candidate''s claim is under particular reservation category then his name is required to be considered both under reservation as well as under general category. In view of the said judgment, in not considering the name of the petitioner under GM Category is contrary to the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court.
The respondent''s counsel resisted the said contention by pointing out the mode of selection stated in the notification dated 29.4.2013 vide Annexure-B. He drew the attention to the mode of selection wherein the qualifying standard marks for written examination is 50% for candidates from the General category and 40% marks for SC/ST/OBC candidates. In view of the minimum qualifying standard marks prescribed for the General Category is 50%, since the petitioner has secured 43% marks in the written examination his candidature cannot be considered under GM Category. Further, learned counsel for the respondent specifically pointed out that the candidate selected under OBC category has secured 67% marks in the written examination and only one post of Assistant Loco Pilot was earmarked to OBC category. Therefore, the petitioner is a demerit candidate consequently, considering his candidature under both OBC and General Merit is impermissible. It was further argued that the decision cited by the petitioner is not helpful to the present case having regard to the facts of the case.
The petitioner contended that 60 posts of Assistant Loco Pilot had been advertised wherein only one vacancy has been earmarked for OBC which is contrary to the reservation policy. For the reasons that 15% of the vacancies should have been reserved for OBC category, reserving only one post for OBC category is illegal and contrary to reservation policy. The respondent''s counsel submitted that it is a policy decision of the respondents in notifying vacancies and earmarking reservation and the policy of reservation insofar as OBC/SC/ST has been complied while calculating vacancies of Assistant Loco Pilot. There is no infirmity in reserving number of vacancies in the notification dated 29.4.2013. Further, respondent''s counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner having participated in the process of recruitment to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot in pursuance of the notification dated 29.4.2013 and due to his non-selection he cannot turn down and question the number of vacancies identified and reserved in the OBC category. In this regard the respondents'' counsel cited decision reported in Union of India and others v. S. Vinod Kumar and others, 2007 AIR SCW 5989 wherein the Apex Court held as follows:
"13. Even assuming that the appellants should have filled up the unfilled vacancies meant for the reserved category candidates by the general candidates, but then for the said purpose, the general candidates were required to fulfill the eligibility clause including the cut off marks fixed therefor. Respondents admittedly did not do so. The High Court, in our opinion, committed a serious error in directing the appellants to lower the cut-off marks. The cut-off mark 20 was fixed for the Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribe candidates. The same was not meant to be applied to the general category candidates. The jurisdiction of the appellants to fix different cut off marks for different category of candidates has never been questioned and in that view of the matter only because the Railway Board had issued a circular as far back as in the year 1976 to fill up the vacancies by unreserved candidates in the event the reserved category of candidates was not available therefor, in our opinion, the same would not mean that irrespective of the qualification and performance of general category candidates they were entitled to be appointed.
***** ***** *****
It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same. (See Munindra Kumar and others Vs. Rajiv Govil and others, . (See also Ku. Rashmi Mishra Vs. Madhya Pradesh Public Service Comission and Others, ."
In view of the decision of the Apex Court, the petitioner cannot question the mode of recruitment having participated in the process of selection. More over Court could not grant relief ignoring mandate of the provisions even if the provisions/rules were apparently discriminatory, unless vires of the provisions/rules are challenged. In the present case, the petitioner has not questioned the roster points of OBC i.e., reserving only one post of OBC for the selection to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot with material information. Thus there is no arbitrariness in the present case.
The petitioner further contended that the impugned endorsement issued by the second respondent is without authority of law and without jurisdiction. However, he has not pointed out how it is without authority of law and jurisdiction. The petitioner further submitted that he is entitled for consideration of his name under General category. In support of the same he has cited decision of the Apex Court which is reported in 1990 Supplementary page 157 (Sridhar v. Nagara Palike, Jaunpur). The respondent counsel submitted that on both the counts namely merit under OBC and cut off percentage under GM Category, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief sought for in the writ petition.
The crux of the matter is that having regarded to the merit of the petitioner viz., securing 43% marks in the examination read with the criteria laid down in the notification dated 29.4.2013 namely mode of selection, he is not entitled to any relief. Extract of the notification is reproduced herein:
"Mode of Selection
Separate panel will be prepared for land loser candidates and other than land loser candidates. Priority for appointment will be given to land loser candidates and only after exhausting the panel of land losers, the second panel (other than land losers) will be operated depending upon the shortfall in the vacancies notified.
Based on the applications received, eligible candidates will be called for written examination. The written examination will consist of objective/subjective questions on general mathematics, English language, current affairs, general knowledge, science, social science. The qualifying marks for written examination will be 50% for candidates from ''GEN'' category and 40% for SC/ST/OBC candidates. Those who qualify in the written examination have to appear for Psychological Aptitude test. Those who qualify in Psychological Aptitude test will be called for Personal Interview and scrutiny of documents as per merit order. Candidates with all clear records and as per merit will be called of prescribed medical examination. The selected and medically fit candidates will be provisionally appointed based on the merit position and the availability of the vacancy subject to verification of antecedents and required to undergo training as per the requirement of the post. The candidates who successfully complete the training will only be appointed on regular basis.
Those candidates who qualify in Psychological Aptitude and Personal Interview but do not have clear records will not be considered further and will be given any additional time to submit the documents and the decision of the screening committee shall be final. No further correspondence will be entertained from such candidates and they will have no claim for any alternate job in KRCL. Merely being called for Psychological Aptitude will not confer any right on candidate for being considered further."
In view of the above facts and circumstances read with the mode of selection to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot the petitioner''s merit do not fit into the prescribed percentage or marks for written examination for general category and had secured lesser merit than the selected candidate under OBC category. Therefore, the impugned communication vide Annexure-"A" dated 2.1.2014 of the second respondent is upheld. The petitioner has not made out a case to interfere with the impugned communication dated 2.1.2014.
In view of the above, I find no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.