JUDGMENT :

AJAY MOHAN GOEL, J.

1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“(i) That the impugned appointment order dated 12.1.2016(A-1) (Colly.) and impugned rejection dated 25.5.2016(A-5) may kindly quashed and set aside being contrary to law.

(ii) That the directions may kindly be issued to the respondents to offer appointment as driver to the applicant being more meritorious to respondents No. 3 and 4.

(iii) That any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be issued and justice be done.”

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are as under:-

In the year 2016, process was initiated by the respondent-department to fill up six posts of drivers. Out of the six posts so advertised, three posts were for open/General category, two posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste category and one post for Scheduled Tribe category. The petitioner before this Court is a candidate who belongs to Scheduled Caste category. His grievance is that appointment given to the selected candidates by the respondentdepartment is bad in law as the petitioner who was more meritorious than two of the candidates selected under the General/open category, has been denied appointment to the post of driver by following a procedure for selection of reserved category candidates unknown to law and contrary to law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in R.K. Sabharwal and others vs. State of Punjab and others, (1995) 2 Supreme Court Cases 745. He submits that those candidates who have been offered appointment and whose names are reflected in Annexure A-2 appended with the petition, have obtained following final marks:-

(1) Sh. Inderjeet (Sr. No. 40) (General Category) = 35.83;

(2) Sh. Sunil Kumar (Sr. No. 66) (General Category) = 35.83;

(3) Sh. Muni Lal (Sr. No. 91) (General Category) 39.66;

(4) Sh. Harjeet Kumar (Sr. No. 59) (Scheduled Caste category) =36.83;

(5) Sh. Heera Lal (Sr. No. 90) (Scheduled Caste category) = 37.66; and

(6) Sh. Jagdish Singh (Sr. No. 48) (Scheduled Tribe Category) =37.50.

3. The petitioner, as per the final result list, secured 36.33 marks, i.e. more marks than two of the selected candidates, namely, Sh. Inderjeet and Sh. Sunil Kumar, yet petitioner has been denied appointment to the post of Driver on the ground that he secured less marks than candidates selected under Scheduled Caste category and therefore, was not entitled for appointment. The stand of the petitioner is that two of the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste category admittedly had secured more marks than the General Category selected candidates. Then in these circumstances, the department should have offered appointment to the meritorious candidates, though belonging to the reserve category against the post meant for General/ open category and the resultant vacancy of reserved category then should have been offered to the candidates belonging to reserved category as per merit. On this count, the contention of the petitioner is that present petition be allowed and appointment of the candidates less meritorious to the petitioner be quashed and set aside and direction be issued to the respondent-department to offer appointment to the petitioner against the post of Driver.

4. Learned Additional Advocate General has supported the act of the department by submitting that there is no illegality committed by the department by offering appointment to the selected candidates because inter se merit which was obtained by the candidates of the category concerned has been duly maintained and amongst them whoever was found more meritorious was offered appointment.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for private parties adopted the arguments of the State and further submitted that the criteria which was followed by the Government was fair and equitable, as a candidate, who participated in a particular category, could and should have been consid