- (1.) THE learned Single Judge has dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing the merit list prepared for selection to the two year BTC Training Course of 2006 and seeking the preparation of a fresh list by deleting the names of two candidates (1) Satish Baboo; and (2) Sunil Kumar Singh. Neither of the two candidates were impleaded as parties to the writ proceedings.
(2.) THE appellant filed an earlier writ petition (Writ -A No 55522 of 2010) which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge with the following observations: "Earlier petitioner had filed writ petition No.18222 of 2010 before this Court, and this Court had asked the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Pindari, Jalaun to look into the grievance of petitioner and take decision. Pursuant to said order, the Principal, District Institute of Education and Training, Pindari, Jalaun examined the matter and found that the petitioner was from Male Scheduled Caste category and his quality point marks were 131.70, whereas last selected candidate from the said category had secured 139.77 quality point marks. Details have also been furnished that in the category in questions against the three seats reserved, two incumbents had already been accorded admission and as third incumbent, Dinesh Bhashkar, who was constable in paramilitary force, did not turn up; in his place one Sunil Kumar son of Raja Ram has to be accorded admission and letter is to be issued to him. Once objective consideration has been made and the petitioner's merit is much low qua the last selected candidate, then there is hardly any scope of interference. Writ petition lacks substance and the same is dismissed."
(3.) A special appeal against the order was dismissed on 13 February 2013 with the following observations: "The learned single Judge has recorded finding that the selected candidate in male scheduled caste category to which the appellant, admittedly, belongs had quality point marks score of 139.77 whereas the petitioner had quality point marks score of only 131.70. Thus the petitioner having secured much below in the quality point marks than the last selected candidate, in which category the petitioner falls, there is no question of selection of the petitioner. In view of this, there is no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed." The appellant then filed another writ petition, which was dismissed on 30 April 2014 in the following terms: "Petitioner's petition filed earlier was dismissed on merits against which petitioner preferred Special Appeal which was dismissed on merit twice. Firstly according to the petitioner the order was ex parte. Thereafter he filed recall application and after recalling the order the Division Bench again dismissed the appeal. Now the petitioner has approached this court praying for a direction to the respondents to provide a list of 48 candidates selected in 2006. In the opinion of the Court, petition is misconceived. After closure of the lis between the parties no fresh direction can be claimed and that too for providing list of selected candidates after 8 years. Petition is accordingly dismissed.";