THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.391 of 2004 ORDER: The petitioner studied I.T.I. in the trade of Fitter. He did apprenticeship training in the Kothagudem Thermal Power Station, Paloncha, a unit of the 1st respondent. A notification dated 02-02-1999 was issued by the respondents, inviting applications for 222 posts of Junior Plant Attendants (JPA). The petitioner submitted his application and was called for interview. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe (ST), and certain posts were reserved for that category. He has also worked as contract labour between 10-12-1996 and 16-11-1999, with the respondents. The interviews were conducted on 25-11-1999. His name did not find place in the list of selected candidates. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to issue a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents in not considering the case of the petitioner for the posts of JPA and not selecting him, as illegal and arbitrary. His principal contention is that no weightage was given to him, in spite of being an apprenticeship, and that the respondents did not follow the principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UPSRTC v. U.P. Parivahan N.S.B. Sangh[1]. Consequential directions are also prayed for. During the pendency of the writ petition, the respondents addressed proceedings dated 23-03-2004, indicating the reasons for non-selection of the petitioner. By filing W.P.M.P., the petitioner sought amendment of the prayer, incorporating the plea against the proceedings dated 23-03-2004. The respondents filed a detailed counter-affidavit. The facts, that the petitioner belongs to ST, he did his apprenticeship training with them, and that he has also worked as contract labour with them; are not disputed. It is stated that the selection process was undertaken in accordance with the relevant Rules and the law laid down by this Court in W.P.No.23439 of 1999. It is stated that the petitioner secured 524 marks out of 700, and several candidates belonging to Open Category (OC), who secured far less marks, were selected. Sri K. Chidambaram, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that the selections were undertaken in accordance with the relevant provisions of law and the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.23439 of 1999. 222 posts of JPA were notified by the respondents. Reservation to the extent of 6% was stipulated in favour of ST candidates. In addition to holding the relevant qualifications, the petitioner did apprenticeship with the respondents and he worked as contract labour for a period of three years, with them. The notification stipulated that the marks secured by the candidates in the I.T.I examination would be standardized to 90%, and 10% marks are earmarked for assessment in the interview. Initially, the respondents sought to add 40% marks in favour of the candidates, who were engaged as contract labour. That would have secured an edge to the petitioner. Some of the candidates challenged the action of the respondents in proposing to add 40% marks for contract labour, by filing W.P.No.23439 of 1999. The writ petition was allowed and the said course was found fault with. A different formula was suggested. On account of working of the same, the petitioner, who secured 524 marks out of 700, in the I.T.I., and 6 marks in the interview; was not selected, whereas an O.C. candidate, by name, Naga Srinivasa Rao, who secured 481 marks in the I.T.I examination, and 6.33 marks in the interview; was selected. Though an attempt is made by the respondents to justify the action, any amount of explanation would not support such an anomaly. Strictly speaking, the petitioner should have been selected against an unreserved vacancy, by virtue of his merit. If there existed any stumbling block for it, he ought to have been selected against a vacancy, earmarked for STs. One does not find any instance at all, where a candidate from a reserved category has secured more number of marks, than a candidate from unreserved category; but not selected. Any amount of inflation of marks in the interview cannot alter the situation, to such a radical extent. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned proceedings dated 23-03-2004 are set aside. The respondents shall issue order of appointment, for the post of JPA, to the petitioner, in case any candidate, who has secured less number of marks, in the aggregate of marks in the I.T.I., standardized to 90%, and the marks awarded in the interview against 10%; was appointed as JPA, in pursuance of the notification dated 02-02-1999. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.29-12-2010. KO [1] AIR 1995 SC 1115