Poonam Srivastav, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as counsel for the Respondents.
(2.) COUNTER affidavit has already been filed. The writ petition can be disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he was within the consideration zone, but he was not given appointment on account of the reason that there was a tie between Petitioner and another candidate. The date of birth of the selected candidate was 14.6.1981, and he being elder to the Petitioner, therefore, according to the settled rules, though both the candidates had equal marks, the Petitioner was deprived of his appointment as he was less in age. This assertion in the writ petition has been replied in the counter affidavit in Para 14, which is quoted herein below: That in reply to the statements made in para -11 of the instant writ petition under reply, the answering Respondents say and submit that the Petitioner's height in the Master Chart was measured as 177.5 Cm., Educational Qualification was Intermediate. So, the total points of the Petitioner is 19 and his date of birth is 03.06.1985. The last selected candidate in general category has obtained 19 points and his date of birth is 14.06.1981. So, the last selected candidate in general category is senior than the applicant as per the Guidelines laid down for recruitment because in case two candidates get the same points, the candidates, who is elder, will be selected. Roll No. 69530 had not even appeared in the physical test. Roll No. 16288 is Ranjeet Dundung, Total Points obtained by him is 15. He is in ST category. Hence, due to relaxation as per rules for selection of ST candidates, he has been selected. Roll No. 16247, Suraj Kumar, has obtained 20 points and hence, he is selected. Hence, the claim of the Petitioner that the candidates having lesser qualification than him have been selected is malicious and not based on facts.
(3.) THUS , the undisputed fact is that both the candidates, the Petitioner and the last appointed candidate, were equal in all the aspects viz. merit, height, and other requirements as well. But, since there was no vacancy, the Petitioner was not able to get the appointment.;