- (1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking direction against the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of driver by preparing the merit list on the basis of the marks obtained in the written examination and trade test. In the instant case, it appears that pursuant to the advertisement dated 6.8.13 Annex.1, the petitioner had applied for the post of Driver and had also appeared in the written examination held by the respondents. The petitioner having successfully cleared the written examination was called for the trade test. According to the petitioner, the respondents did not select him for the post of Driver on the ground that he had not secured the cut-off marks. Since the petitioner was not given appointment he has filed the present writ petition.
(2.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Ram Pratap Saini for the petitioner that the respondents should have considered the consolidated marks obtained by the petitioner in the written examination as well as in the trade test, for which he has placed reliance on the unreported judgment of this court in case of Prem Prakash Sharma Vs. RSRTC & Ors. in SBCWP No. 13855/11 decided on 9.11.11. He has also submitted that though the respondents had called the candidates three times in the number to he posts advertised, the merit list of only 500 candidates is prepared. According to him if all the vacancies as advertised are filled up, the petitioner would be entitled to get the appointment on the said post.
(3.) The court does not find any substance in any of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. As per Condition NO. 27 of the advertisement dated 6.8.14 Annex.1, the final merit list was to be prepared considering only the marks obtained in the written examination by the successful candidates who had cleared the trade test. Hence, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to say that the merit list should have been prepared after consolidating the marks obtained in the written test as well as the trade test. As per Condition No. 21, the candidates three times in number to the posts advertised, who had passed out written examination were to be called in the trade test and accordingly the respondents had called the candidates for the trade test. However, so far as preparation of the merit list for 500 posts is concerned, it appears from the office order dated 2.7.14 that the respondent No.1 had given sanction to fill up only 500 posts and not all the posts as advertised taking resort to Condition No. 14 of the said advertisement, which permitted the respondents to increase or decrease the posts advertised for recruitment of drivers. Hence, merely because the candidates three times in number to the posts advertised were called for trade test, and the merit list of only 500 posts was prepared, it could not be said that the respondents had committed any illegality in preparing the merit list. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no application to the facts of the present case inasmuch as in the said case, the issue was with regard to the non-mentioning of minimum passing marks in the trade test.;