SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE appellant, who is original petitioner has challenged in this appeal the judgment and order dated 28. 10. 1999 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing the writ petition no. 544/96.
(2.) BY a brief order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner failed to qualify the examination. We have carefully perused the averments made in the petition as well as reply affidavits filed by the respondents. It appears that the cut of marks were fixed at 107. 27 in general category, whereas, the petitioner secured only 86. 51 marks, therefore, he was not called for interview. The petitioner claims to be included in the O. B. C. category. It may be stated that, almost similar petition being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 543/96 challenging the short listing by other persons was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court as stated at the bar by the learned counsel Shri Mathur. Detail reply affidavit is filed to the main petition by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and in para No. 8 of the same they have explained that about 9 posts of Geologist were advertised for the vacancies for the year 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95. Out of that four vacancies were for the year 1992-93 and three were for 1993-94 and two were for 1994-95. For the purpose of providing direct recruitment to various posts the Department of Personnel issued an order dated 26. 2. 94, whereby, new roster point was issued for vacancies falling vacant on or before 28. 9. 93 which was annexed as R/1 to the reply affidavit. It is clear from the affidavit in reply that four vacancies were advertised during 1992-93, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to provide O. B. C. reserved quota as they were prior to 28. 9. 93. According to new roster point, O. B. C. comes under 6th point. Since there were 3+2 i. e. 5 vacancies during 1993-94 and 1994-95, there was no question for the respondents to reserve any seat for O. B. C.
(3.) ONCE it becomes clear that no post of O. B. C. can be reserved for the year 1993-94 and 1994-95 then in our considered opinion the petitioner cannot ask himself to be included in O. B. C. category. Apart from that, if this appeal is to be allowed then in all 9 persons would be affected who are not before this Court, therefore, no such relief can be granted in favour of the appellant petitioner and that too after a lapse of five years. In view of the above, we do not find any substance or merit in this appeal and accordingly, it fails and is hereby dismissed. . ;