1 S. B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5897/2003 PRAMOD ANAND GIRI V. THE STATE OF RAJ. & OTHERS. DATE OF ORDER :::: 11/03/2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI Mr. Mahesh Bora, for Petitioner (s) Mr.M.S.Bhati, Addl. G.A. By this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents for granting appointment to respondent No.4 – Prasant Acharya, though the petitioner possesses more marks than the respondent No.4. The prayer in the writ petition thus is made for quashing of the order of appointment of respondent No.4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that though petitioner has obtained 80.07 percentage of marks, but he has been denied benefit of appointment, but, at the same time, a candidate like Prasant Acharya, having obtained only 78.58% marks, was then given appointment in violation of the merit position. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the 2 petitioner being an O.B.C. candidate, thus was considered in the OBC category, whereas Prasant Acharya being a General Caste candidate, merit list was separately prepared for General Category. Therefore, justifying the action, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there exists no illegality in their action. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that OBC candidate cannot be denied appointment despite of higher merit than a General Caste candidate, inasmuch as meritorious reserved caste candidate has to be first considered in the category of general merit, however, the respondent has failed to undertake such an exercise and thereby, the appointment of Prasant Acharya is bad in law. While considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, I had seen the order-sheet of this case and find that vide order dated 9.1.2006, writ petition of the petitioner qua respondent No.4 – Prasant Acharya has already been dismissed and the said order has not further been challenged. In view of the aforesaid fact, the main prayer of the petitioner in the writ petition cannot be 3 accepted, because order of appointment issued in favour of Prasant Acharya cannot be set aside in his absence, rather in view of the rejection of the present writ petition qua Prasant Acharya and if the appointment of Prasant Acharya cannot be quashed then the petitioner cannot be accommodated in place of Prasant Acharya. In view of the above, looking to the dismissal of the writ petition against Prasant Acharya, petitioner cannot be granted relief. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. (M. N. BHANDARI), J. scd