S.N. Pathak, J. - (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a direction upon the respondents for appointment to the post of Police Constable in Indian Reserve Battalion in pursuance to Advertisement No. 01/2011 dated 15.09.2011.
(2.) The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that an advertisement was floated by the respondents for appointment to the post of police constables in Indian Reserve Battalion as Advertisement No. 01/11, which was published in the Hindi Newspaper Dainik Jagran dated 15.09.2011. The petitioner having requisite qualification for appointment to the said post, applied for same. Thereafter, upon verification of the same, an admit card was issued for appearing in the examination and roll number was allotted to the petitioner. In view of the said admit card, the petitioner appeared in the physical test as well as written test, in which the petitioner was selected. Thereafter, the results were published in the year, 2013 wherein, the name of the petitioner was appearing in the merit list. When the name of the petitioner appeared in the merit list, the petitioner approached the respondents-authorities wherein, the petitioner was informed that he would be offered letter of appointment, but at his native place i.e. Uttar Pradesh. However, the petitioner did not receive any letter of appointment, left with no option, he has represented before the respondents in the year, 2013 and again in the year, 2016. As the petitioner did not receive any letter of appointment neither any orders on the pending representation, left with no other efficacious, alternative and speedy remedy, the petitioner has been constrained to approach this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances.
(3.) Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled for appointment to the post of police constable in Indian Reserve Battalion as he has qualified in all the events meant for selection for the post of police constables. Learned counsel further argues that as per the marks displayed in the master chart and also as per the marks given, the petitioner has passed and qualified in all the events and as such, secured 10 marks but it is only in the counter-affidavit, respondents have come out with a plea that as the petitioner has obtained only 10 marks and last selected candidate has obtained 11 marks and as such, he could not be appointed, is illegal and not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel further argues that the respondents have not considered the marks of the petitioner, awarded for his educational qualification of graduation level, if this one marks is added then the petitioner come comfortably under the zone of consideration and as such, a direction may be given to the respondents for awarding of one more marks to the petitioner as the petitioner is a graduate.;