Candidates from reserved categories can be appointed in general categories without affecting their rights to be considered for reserved positions, ensuring adherence to reservation policies.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved by declaration of result dated 13.08.2024, merit list dated 07.12.2024 and appointment letter dated 11.12.2024 instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a further prayer to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Junior Legal Officer.

2. Facts in brief are that one advertisement dated 19.07.2023 was issued by the respondents for inviting application on the post of Legal Assistant (Junior Legal Officer). As per aforesaid advertisement as many as nine vacancies were advertised, out of which five vacancies were relating to general category candidates, one for general woman, one for SC, one for OBC and one vacancy was to be filled through specially abled person.

3. Petitioner in the instant writ petition has stated that he belongs to OBC category and submitted his application form accordingly in the aforesaid category. After scrutiny of application form, he was allowed to appear in the online screening examination which took place on 10.09.2023.

4. Petitioner further states that his name was albeit included in the provisional list of candidates for eligibility checking, which was issued on 01.10.2023, yet while the final select list and result was declared, name of the petitioner was not there. The petitioner further states that as per result declared, he has secured total 263 raw marks, which were increased to 272.06897 after moderation.

5. As per petitioner, minimum qualifying marks were 40% and he had secured more than 60% marks, therefore, was eligible to be considered for appointment in OBC category.

6. It was contended by the petitioner that although as per Rules, three times candidates to the vacancies advertised were required to be considered for document verification and were to be included in the provisional list for consideration, however, instead of 27 (9x3) candidates only 26 candidates were called for document verification, which is a material irregularity and in case had 27 candidates been called, the petitioner would have also been included in the provisional list for consideration. Petitioner further contended that when the provisional list for consideration was issued on 13.08.2024 and the name of the petitioner was not included, then feeling dissatisfied, he preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13826/2024, in which initially one interim order dated 28.08.2024 was issued to the extent that in case any appointment is made pursuant to the provisional list, the same shall remain subject to the outcome of the writ petition. However, later on when the appointment order was issued, the aforesaid S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13826/2024 was rendered infructuous.

7. Petitioner further stated that bare perusal of appointment order dated 11.12.2024 would reveal that not a single candidate belonging to OBC category has been appointed, whereas in the initial advertisement dated 19.07.2023, one vacancy for OBC category was shown. The petitioner pointed out that although four candidates, who initially submitted their application form in OBC category, have been appointed vide order dated 11.12.2024, yet since all those candidates secured more marks than the cut off marks declared for general category, therefore, they have been considered and appointed against the vacancies of general category and not against the vacancies of OBC category.

8. The petitioner contended that thus, while not granting any appointment to OBC category candidate against the vacancy of OBC, the respondents have not only violated the policy and Rules relating to reservation, but has also deprived of the petitioner of his legitimate right for consideration and appointment on the post of Junior Legal Officer. Petitioner prayed that such arbitrary appointment to the extent to which, it did not include any appointment against OBC category may be held arbitrarily and since the petitioner belongs to OBC category and as per marks obtained by him, he is required to be considered fo