Alok Kumar Pandit vs State Of Assam & Ors

4. As the appellant’s name did not figure in the merit list, he submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for supply of the details of marks awarded to him in various papers and interview. Vide reply dated 16.7.2009, the Commission informed the appellant that he had secured 840 marks (669 in the main examination and 141 in the interview). The appellant then filed Writ Petition No.3590/2009 for quashing the entire selection and for issue of a mandamus to the Commission to prepare fresh select list in accordance with the recruitment rules and the reservation policy framed by the State Government. Some other unsuccessful candidates also filed writ petitions questioning the selection made by the Commission. The Division Bench of the High Court disposed of all the petitions by common order dated 1.9.2009 and directed the Commission to prepare fresh select list.

6. The Division Bench of the High Court considered the case of one Manjit Barkakoti, who had secured 952 marks and was placed at Sl.No.25 in the overall merit, but could not be appointed to the Assam Civil Service against the open category post because his marks were less than other open category candidates and held that no illegality was committed by appointing him to that service against the post earmarked for the reserved category. The Division Bench further held that appointment of the candidates of the reserved category, who were adjudged more meritorious than some of the open category candidates against the posts earmarked for the particular reserved category did not result in usurpation of the quota earmarked for that category. All this is evinced from the following portions of the impugned order:

15. In Anurag Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission (supra) this Court was called upon to consider whether more meritorious candidates of reserved category who were adjusted against the posts earmarked for general category were not entitled to make a choice of the post earmarked for reserved category. The facts as noticed by this Court were that the 3rd respondent, i.e., Rajesh Kumar Chaurasia in CA No. 4794 of 1998, who secured 76th place in the select list, filed Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 46029 of 1993 before the High Court of Allahabad contending that he was appointed as a Sales Tax Officer, although the appellant in CA No. 4794 of 1998, i.e., Nanku Ram (Anurag Patel) who was also a Backward Class candidate, was appointed as a Deputy Collector, who according to the 3rd respondent, had secured 97th rank in the select list, a rank lower than him. Similarly, 8 persons, all belonging to Backward Classes, who find their names in the select list filed Writ Petition No. 22753 of 1993 alleging that they were entitled to get postings in higher cadre of service as the persons who secured lower rank in the select list were given appointment to higher posts. The first petitioner in the writ petition i.e. Shri Rama Sanker Maurya and the 2nd petitioner i.e. Shri Abdul Samad were at Serial Nos. 13 and 14 in the select list. According to these petitioners, persons lower in rank who got appointment in the reserved category were given postings on the ground that those posts were earmarked for being appointed in Class II services. After noticing the judgments in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul (1996) 3 SCC 253 and State of Bihar v. M. Neethi Chandra (supra), the Court observed:

21. As a sequel to the above, the questions framed in this appeal are answered in the following terms:

22. In the result the appeal is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.