[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 9855/2008 SUDHINDRA KUMAWAT Vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. & ORS. Date: 12.09.2008 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RATHORE Mr. Sudhindra Kumawat for the petitioner. Mr. Virendra Lodha for the respondents **** Pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.04.2008 issued by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Limited for the posts of Personnel Officer/ Assistant Personnel Officer, the petitioner submitted his application form under the category of 'OBC' candidate and was permitted to appear in the written examination provisionally and was issued permission letter by the respondent No.3, the Joint Director (Personnel & Administration), Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Jaipur. Since the petitioner was not called in the interview, therefore, this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per column No.6 (Selection Process) of the advertisement, a joint written examination will be conducted for selection of Personnel Officer/ Asstt. Personnel Officer, but the merit list shall be prepared separately for both the posts. The respondents declared the result of the examination on 03.09.2008 and called as many as 18 candidates [2] for interview, whereas as per the provisions of law, the respondents were required to call 27 candidates for interview and the respondents should prepare separate list for Personnel Officer and Asstt. Personnel Officer as per the terms and conditions mentioned in the advertisement and according to the rules. It is also contended that interviews are going to be held on 13.09.2008 and since the petitioner has not been called in the interview, therefore, the respondents were called upon to submit reply. Learned counsel Mr. Virendra Lodha accepts notices on behalf of the respondents and submitted an additional affidavit, which has been taken on record. Mr. Lodha referred the educational qualification laid down for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer which is relevant in the case as the petitioner applied for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer and the required educational qualification for the said post is as under:- "शै्षिणक योग् यता- (1) कािमर्क अिधकारी एवं सहायक कािमर्क अिधकारी पद हेतु:- भारत में िविध Ʈारा ः थािपत मान् यता ूाप् त िवँ विवƭालय से कला, िव्ञान या वािणज् य में ः नातक अथवा देशी िवँ विवƭालय से ः नातक, िजसे सरकार Ʈारा समक्ष उपािध की मान् यता दी गई हो तथा साथ मे :- (1) भारत में िविध Ʈारा ः थािपत मान् यता ूाप् त िवँ विवƭालय से सामािजक कायर् या कािमर्क [3] ूबन् ध या मानव संसाधन िवकास/ ूबन् ध या औƭोिगक संबंध में ः नातकोत् तर उपािध अथवा (2) भारत में िविध Ʈारा ः थािपत मान् यता ूाप् त िवँ विवƭालय से ौम कानून, ौम कल् याण एवं कािमर्क ूबन् ध में ः नोतकोत् तर िडप् लोमा" After referring the educational qualification, Mr. Lodha further submits that qualification for the post of Personnel Officer and Assistant Personnel Officer is same but only rider that for the post of Personnel Officer, an incumbent should have been obtained a minimum 55% marks in Graduation as well as Professional Qualification as mentioned in the advertisement. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he applied for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer and since he did not obtain 55% marks in his educational qualification, accordingly applied for the post of Assistant Personnel Officer under the 'OBC' category. It is also submitted on oath in the additional affidavit that the petitioner belongs to OBC category and against the 4 posts of Assistant Personnel Officer, 18 candidates were called for interview and the last candidate who has been called for interview in the 'OBC' category has obtained 195 marks out of total 300 marks, whereas the petitioner obtained only 180 marks out of 300 marks. Mr. Lodha further placed the lists of candidates prepared separately for the post of [4] Personnel Officer and Assistant Personnel Officer who are found eligible for interview. I have heard rival submissions of the respective parties and carefully gone through the relevant material available on the file and placed before this Court. Since the respondents have called 18 candidates against the 4 posts of Assistant Personnel Officer for interview and under the 'OBC' category, only one post has been reserved against which 4 candidates have been called for interview and the last candidate in the 'OBC' category who has been called for interview has obtained 195 marks out of 300 marks and the petitioner only obtained 180 marks, I find no merit in the writ petition and also do not find any illegality and the petitioner has got no case in his favour as he only obtained 180 marks out of 300 marks. Consequently, the writ petition fails being devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. (K.S. RATHORE),J. /KKC/