- (1.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Looking to the nature of the controversy even in the absence of the reply, I will proceed to dispose of the writ petition as it relates to employment of unemployed Graduate.
(3.) Respondent No. 3 advertised the posts of Lab Assistants and the petitioner applied for one post of Lab Assistant. The petitioner has enclosed all the relevant certificates. A list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner was at S. No. 42 showing his percentage of marks 58.50. According to the petitioner, objections were invited by the candidates against the aforesaid list and he filed objections because he was entitled to one more mark on the ground that he has taken part in sports. But he was not allowed one mark made on the ground that the endorsement on his certificate about sports was not on the front but on the back. According to the petitioner, if one more mark would have been awarded to him for which he was entitled, his total marks would have been 59.50. It is further case of the petitioner that one Hans Raj Sharma has been given appointment as Lab Assistant and his S. No. is 24 and merit No. 33 in the list which was prepared on 27.12.1991 and his name appeared at S.No. 39 and his total marks were shown as 59.25. It the petitioner would have been awarded one mark as aforesaid, his total marks would have been 59.50 and his position would have been higher in merit than Hans Raj Sharma. His merit position would have been at S. No. 32, and he should have been given appointment.;