- (1.) THE petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking direction against the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner under the 5% quota of vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer -I/II, earmarked for special selection by way of Limited Departmental Competitive Examination from amongst the departmental technical employees having requisite qualification, and further seeking direction to the effect that the action of the respondents including the 5% vacancies earmarked for special selection, by way of filling those vacancies by direct recruitment be quashed and set aside.
(2.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel Mr. Abhishek Sharma for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Helper I on compassionate ground, and thereafter during the service, he obtained the degree of Bachelor of Engineering (Electrical Branch) from the University of Rajasthan. According to him, earlier the respondents had provided for the quota of 5% of vacancies for the post of Junior Engineers I /II to the Department Employees possessing the requisite qualification, however the respondents have now included the said quota for the vacancies to be filled up by direct recruitment. He further submitted that though the decision has been taken by the respondents to fill up the said post by direct recruitment, no decision for withdrawing 5% quota for departmental employees has been taken. Relying upon the information provided by the respondents under the Right to Information Act, Mr. Sharma submitted that though as many as 9 vacancies for the earlier years are to be filled up from the special quota for departmental employees, the respondents are not filling up the same from departmental candidates.
(3.) HOWEVER , the learned counsels Mr. B.L. Saini and Mr. Ajay Gupta for the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have submitted that as per the decision taken by the Board of Directors - Annexure -R/1, the post of Junior Engineer -I has to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment from open market through written competitive examination and there is no special quota provided for the departmental candidates as claimed by the petitioner. He also submitted that at present all the vacancies have been filled up by way of direct recruitment and even otherwise the petitioner had not applied for the said post, and therefore, has no right to be appointed as such. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and the documents on record, more particularly from the order dated 12/9/2006 passed by the respondent -Nigam it appears that though as per the said order, 5% of the vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer I/II could be filled up from the suitable candidates amongst the departmental employees, the said order was not implemented. Now, it appears from the order dated 8/7/2011 Annexure -R/1 that as per the decision taken by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 28/6/2011, the posts of Junior Engineer I were to be filled up 100% by direct recruitment from open market through written competitive examination. Accordingly, the respondents had issued the advertisement Annexure -11. Apart from the fact that there is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had applied for the said post pursuant to the said advertisement, as such the petitioner can not claim as a matter of right to fill up 5% of the post from departmental employees. It is required to be noted that whether the post should be filled up 100% by way of direct recruitment or there should be any quota for departmental employees, would be a matter of policy to be decided by the respondent -Nigam, and neither the petitioner can insist for reserving the quota for the departmental candidates, nor the Courts can issue such direction to reserve the quota for departmental candidates. In absence of any violation of any right, much -less the fundamental right, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present petition. Similar petition also appears to have been dismissed by the Coordinate Bench in the matter of Ram Niwas Agarwal vs. Raj. Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15280/2011, decided on 21/11/2012.;