Candidates with higher merit cannot be discriminated against on procedural grounds, emphasizing that merit should dictate appointments as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Anand Sharma, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for direction against the respondents to give him appointment on the post of Junior Compounder/Nurse pursuant to advertisement dated 24.04.1999, as he has secured more marks than the last selected candidate (respondent No.3) in Scheduled Caste category and his name be placed at suitable place in final select list dated 19.03.2002 according to marks secured by him and all the consequential benefits may be granted to him.

2. Facts of the case in brief are that the petitioner is a member of Scheduled Caste. He took admission in Diploma in Ayurveda Nurse/Compounder training, wherein he appeared in part-I examination, result whereof was declared on 20.11.1995, however, as per result, the petitioner could not clear one paper in the examination. Hence, the petitioner appeared in the said paper again in supplementary examination and as per result dated 04.11.1996, he qualified the said paper. Later on, on completion of entire course, mark-sheet was issued to him on 12.09.1997 where he obtained 55.9% marks in the aforesaid diploma. Thereafter, he was required to undergo internship and he completed his internship on 16.04.1998.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that one notification dated 24.04.1999 was issued by the office of the Director, Ayurveda Department, Ajmer, whereby application against 200 vacancies of Junior Compounder/Nurse were advertised and applications were invited from the eligible candidates. It is submitted that the merit was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in diploma in Ayurved Nurse/Compounder training and the recruitment was to be conducted in accordance with the proceedings contemplated in the Rajasthan Ayurvedic, Unani, Homoeopathy and Naturopathy Subordinate Service Rules, 1966. The last date for filing the application was 31.05.1999.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that thus, before the date of issuance of advertisement dated 24.04.1999, the petitioner was possessing the qualification, hence, he submitted his application under the Scheduled Caste category.

5. Thereafter, the merit list was prepared in accordance with the marks obtained in the aforesaid diploma, category wise and at the relevant time cut-off marks in the aforesaid recruitment process for the candidates appearing in Scheduled Caste category were declared as 50.77%. As the petitioner was possessing 55.9%, therefore, he was having legitimate claim of appointment under the said category. However, one order dated 19.03.2002 was issued by the respondent No.2, whereby appointment was given to as many as 197 candidates out of which 29 candidates from SC category were appointed. Last candidate (respondent No.3) was having 50.77% marks, yet appointment was not offered to the petitioner.

6. It is submitted that when the petitioner enquired into the reasons for not appointing him, it was submitted that the criteria for taking the marks into consideration for the purpose of preparing the merit list was changed and it was decided that for the purpose of preparation of merit list, in the cases where the candidates, who could not qualify the examination of diploma course in first attempt, the marks obtained by them in subsequent attempt shall not be taken into account and merit shall be prepared by taking the minimum marks into consideration. Since, the petitioner was also falling in such category where he could not clear all the papers in one single attempt, therefore, he was excluded from the