- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. It is submitted that in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure-2), the petitioner applied for the post of Constable in General Category and after due consideration, the petitioner was allowed to appear in the written examination and permission letter was issued to him under General Category, which is placed on record as Annexure-3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although petitioner applied in the General Category for appointment on the post of Constable and he was allowed to appear in the written examination under General Category but later on he was declared unsuccessful in view of para 9 (11) of the advertisement in which it is provided that if any error will be found in the OMR sheet then the candidate will be declared unsuccessful without evaluation of his answer sheets. According to the petitioner, such type of term and conditions is totally arbitrary and unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice because petitioner is claiming his right in the General Category in which he was allowed to appear in the written examination under the General Category but in view of para 9 (11) of the advertisement, the respondents declared the petitioner unsuccessful without even assessing the petitioner's answer sheets, therefore, the respondents may be directed to assess the petitioner's answer sheet and after evaluation, the petitioner stands in merit then he may be provided appointment in accordance with Rules.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the respondent State submits that petitioner is abide by all the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement and as per Condition No. 9 (11) of the advertisement it was made it clear that in the event of incorrect information furnished by the candidate in the OMR sheet, will be declared unsuccessful because result is to be prepared on computer. Therefore, the petitioner cannot claim any right for evaluating his answer sheet in view of para 9 (11) of the advertisement. The respondents have rightly rejected his candidature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, a pointed query is made to the counsel for the respondents whether such rule is there for rejecting the claim of evaluation of the answer sheet due to wrong information or any information hide by the candidate. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that although there is no rule but this condition was incorporated in the advertisement as per guidelines issued by the Government which is made applicable upon all the candidates, therefore, petitioner cannot claim any right for evaluating his answer sheet.
(3.) IN my opinion, there is complete fallacy in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondents because petitioner is not claiming any reservation but claiming his right under General Category in which he was allowed to appear in the written examination by the respondents under the general category therefore obviously on hyper technical ground, the respondents cannot deny the fruits of written examination in which the petitioner was permitted as general category candidate. It is true that in the advertisement condition No.9 (11) was incorporated but the said condition is not in consonance with rules, therefore, respondent's reply is hereby rejected.;