D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.)The petitioners in this writ application have prayed for a direction upon the respondents to appoint the petitioners on the post of 4th grade employee in pursuance to the advertisement bearing advertisement No. V 02/2002 dated 24.4.2002 issued by the Assistant Director (Employment), Additional Regional Employment Exchange, Hazaribagh (respondent No. 4). A further prayer has been made for issuance of a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioners immediately and forthwith and to give their posting against the vacant posts and also to grant and pay the consequential benefits to them as extended to the similarly situated persons whose names were also recommended for their appointment to the post of 4th grade employee along with the petitioners.
(2.)THE case of the petitioners is that in response to the advertisement (Annexure 1) issued by the respondent No. 4 for preparing panel to make appointment on the class -IV posts, the petitioners had submitted their candidature by virtue of their respective applications. The petitioners 1 to 13 belong to the Scheduled Castes category, while petitioners 14 to 23 belong to the category of other backward classes. The petitioners do possess the requisite qualification for their appointment to the aforementioned post. The petitioners were issued admit cards and they had appeared at the written test and had also participated in the physical test. Respondents selected 450 candidates for preparing a panel and the names of the petitioners along with their respective roll Nos. appeared in the selection list. The respondents published second and third list and a panel of total number of 676 candidates was prepared and published by the respondents. The respondents recommended the names of 346 candidates only as per existing vacancies in the various offices of the Hazaribagh District. The names and roll numbers of the petitioners also finds place in the list of recommended candidates. However, the respondents issued appointment letters in favour of 308 candidates only out of 346 recommended candidates, excluding the petitioners.
The grievance of the petitioners is that in the rules relating to the selection of candidates for their appointment, there is provision for making roaster arrangement in terms of which 18% of the vacancies are reserved for the Scheduled Castes candidates, 24% for other backward classes, 8% for the Scheduled Tribes candidates and the remaining candidates for the general category. This, according to the petitioners, was not adhered to by the respondents while issuing appointment letters. The contention of the petitioners is that by resorting to pick and choose method, the respondents have issued appointment letters to the candidates placed much below the petitioners in the merit list and have thereby deprived the petitioners of their valuable right of appointment. It is further contended that the petitioners along with the other remaining candidates, had submitted their representation before the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh vide Annexure 6 on 15.4.2006, but no action has been taken on the same as yet. It is further contended that a large number of vacancies in class -IV posts in the District of Hazaribagh still exist and the petitioners are entitled to their appointment against the vacant post, since they possess all the requisite qualification and fulfill all the eligibility criteria and since their names were earlier recommended by the respondents themselves for their appointment.

(3.)IN the counter -affidavit filed by the respondents 1, 2 and 5, it has been acknowledged that the petitioners 1 to 13 fall within the Scheduled Castes category and are in the merit list, though their position arc below in the merit list. It is also acknowledged that 308 candidates have been recommended so far, out of which, 143 candidates are in the general category, 55 in the Scheduled Caste category, 32 in the Scheduled Tribes category and 78 in the OBC category. It has been explained that the candidates whose names appeared in the waiting list at serial Nos. 78 to 83. are females and orthopedically, handicapped persons and therefore, their names have been recommended for their appointment since they do deserve such recommendation on the basis of reservation policy.