NARENDRA NATH TIWARI, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has sought to challenge the recruitment process of Management Trainee in MECON Ltd., which is a Public Sector Undertaking, mainly on the ground that the eligibility criteria of the candidates, who appeared and passed Engineering Graduation Examination in 2006 or appearing in 2007 for their final examination, are only eligible to apply for the same is arbitrary and discriminatory depriving the petitioner and others of their opportunity to apply for that post.
(2.) IT has been stated that the petitioner passed Engineering Graduation Examination in 2004 and he has been deprived of the opportunity because of the said condition, which is wholly irrational and without any legal basis. Mr. M. Jagannath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that imposition of such condition and creation of a class within a class is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and the same is wholly unsustainable. The said notice and the entire selection process are, thus, vitiated and liable to be quashed by this Court.
(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, raising preliminary objections, regarding maintainability of this writ petition and locus standi of the petitioner. It has been contended that the petitioner, who does not also fulfil the minimum marks/criteria is not eligible to apply, is not either an interested person or an aggrieved person for challenging the other criteria for eligibility of the examination. The petitioner claims himself as member of the Scheduled Caste, but does not fulfil the requisite minimum criteria of 60% marks in aggregate of all years/semesters in Bachelor Degree in Engineering, even if the candidates, who passed their Bachelor Degree Engineering Examination in 2006 -07, having not obtained minimum 60% marks in aggregate of all semesters, are not eligible for appointment for Management Trainee and as such, he has got no locus standi to challenge the said selection criteria. It has been further contended that on the ground of discrimination and on identical grounds, the said Examination was challenged by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 575 of 2007, but when the case was taken up, after some argument, learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for withdrawal of the said writ petition.;