- (1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for the post of Trainer Drummer in pursuance of a public advertisement No.2/08, which is annexed as Annexure1 to the memo of petition. Thereafter the petitioner cleared all the tests taken by the respondents and she secured higher marks than the other candidates and even thereafter the petitioner has not been appointed and, therefore the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents, petitioner has secured 50 marks, whereas one more candidate, namely Raj Kumari, who has secured 46 marks, she has been appointed leaving aside the present petitioner. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the respondents and, therefore, petitioner is seeking writ of mandamus upon the respondents for grant of appointment of the petitioner as a Trainer Drummer.
(3.) Counsel for the respondents has submitted that they have filed detailed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit. It is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that pursuant to a public advertisement, which is annexed as Annexure 1 to the memo of petition, there were four vacancy for the post of Trainer Drummer. Two posts are kept for general category candidates, one is reserved for Scheduled Tribes candidate and last post is reserved for Other Backward Classes candidate. As per AnnexureB to the supplementary counter affidavit, two Scheduled Tribes candidates have secured 61 and 51 marks respectively and, therefore, instead of putting them in reserved category candidates, they are entitled to be appointed under General Category Candidates and there is no illegality committed by the respondents. So far another candidate, namely Raj Kumari, is concerned, she belongs to Other Backward Classes candidate for which there is one seat reserved and she is the only candidate in the category of Other Backward Classes candidates who has secure 46 marks and she is the 3 rd candidate selected for the posts. One Sushila Toppo who has secured 51 marks, for that candidate there is only one seat reserved and in her reserved category seat she has secured highest marks and, therefore, Sushila Toppo isselected for reserved category candidate i.e. Scheduled Tribes candidate. Petitioner being a General Category Candidate, has secured lesser marks than one Sangita Purty and Sunita Kachchap and, therefore, she has not been selected at all in the general category candidates. Counsel for the respondents stated that if the reserved category candidates, may be Scheduled Caste candidate, may be Scheduled Tribe candidate, may be Other Backward Classes candidate, if these candidates are securing higher marks and capable of being appointed in General Category candidates, than they shall be appointed towards the vacancy for the General Category Candidates, so that other reserved category candidates may be appointed for their respective reserved quotas. Hence the claim made by the petitioner is not tenable in the eyes of law and petition deserves to be dismissed.;