Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) No. 2247/2010 & CM No. 4539/2010 (Stay)
30th September, 2013 TAHIR HUSSAIN ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. D.K.Singh, Adv.
INDIA ...... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain, Adv.
To be referred to the Reporter or not? VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
JUDGMENT
1. By this writ petition, petitioner seeks the relief of being appointed to the post of Junior Assistant (Office) with the respondent. The relief clause itself states that petitioner be appointed only as per his ranking and merit.
2. Petitioner appeared in the selection process for the post by appearing in the written test held on 28.10.2007 and in the typing test which was held on 16.3.2008. Interview was thereafter conducted of the petitioner on 15.7.2008. Petitioner claims that he is entitled to be appointed, however, it 2013:DHC:5032 is not disputed that petitioner’s claim would be valid only if the petitioner had the necessary ranking in the merit list/select list.
3. Counter-affidavit filed by the respondent shows that petitioner applied in the General Category where he was placed at serial no.98 in the select list, and appointments in the general category is only up to serial no. 67. Petitioner is therefore far below the cut-off candidates’ marks and serial number, and therefore cannot be appointed.
4. In the writ petition, it was stated that persons who have got much lesser marks than the petitioner had been appointed, however, respondent in its affidavit has clarified that such persons who have got less marks than the petitioners were in the reserved category of SC or ST or OBC or PH etc.
5. I may note that 50% of the vacancies in the present case were reserved in terms of the order dated 30.4.2007 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18661-65/2004.
6. In view of the above, since the selection can only be on the petitioner’s achieving a particular position in the merit list, and which position petitioner has not obtained because in the General Category list selection was only up to the candidate having serial no. 67, and since petitioner is at serial no.98, no relief as claimed in the writ petition can be granted to the petitioner.
7. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
SEPTEMBER 30, 2013 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J. ib