1. The Public Service Commission vide its order notification No. 12 P.S.C of 1999 dated 20.12.199 invited applications for the post of Medical Officer Ayurveda in Health and Family Welfare and Medical Education Department. There were eighteen posts which were to be filled up and out of which three posts stood earmarked for R.B.A category. The petitioner was one of the candidates who applied in response to the said advertisement. The last date for receipt of the applications was 7th of February 2000. Admittedly along with the application-form petitioner did not attach the R.B.A category certificate issued by the competent authority appointed under SRO 126 of 1994(Reservation Rules). The date fixed for interview of the eligible candidates was 10.1.2001. By that time the petitioner stood issued R.B.A category certificate by the competent authority. Despite being possessed of the reservation certificate dated 24.5.2000 issued in her favour she was interviewed and considered in the open category and not in RBA category under which she had applied.

2. The Public Service Commission after completing the selection process issued the select list Vide its notification dated 1.2.2001. The name of the petitioner did not figure either in the open category or in the RBA category in the select list, therefore, being aggrieved of his non- selection she has filed the present writ petition for questioning her non- selection and selection of respondents No. 4 to 12.

3. The challenge of the petitioner is two folds. Firstly, it is submitted that petitioner being more meritorious than the private respondents No. 4 to 12 deserved to be selected. Secondly, that respondents No. 10 and 11 who belonged to open category and had been selected under the R.B.A category, ought not to have been selected in that category and instead the petitioner being a RBA category candidate should have been considered and selected against the RBA category post.

4. The stand of the respondent-Commission is that as the merit of the petitioner was lower than the selected candidates in the open category, therefore, she could not be selected in that category. As regards her selection in the RBA Category she could not be considered because she had not filed the requisite certificate i.e. RBA category certificate within the cut off date, which was the last date for receipt of the application- form. The RBA category certificate obtained by her after the expiry of the cut of date was of no consequence.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Commission. The first contention of Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was more meritorious than the last candidate selected in the open category is not tenable. From the record of the selection, it is evident that petitioner obtained 77 marks, whereas the merit of the last candidate selected in the open category is 86.56 marks. Mr. Sharma, submits that the petitioner has not been given credit of the past experience, but his this assertion too is without any basis. The break up of the merit position of the petitioner indicates that for academics he obtained 15 marks out of 25, for experience he was awarded two marks out of five and in the interview he got 16 marks out of 100. So the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner for challenging the selection is found to be without any merit.

6. Now coming to the second ground of challenge, admittedly, respondent No. 10 Sanjay Chada and respondent No. 11 Narinder Sharma who had applied in the open category and had obtained 87 and 86.86 marks respectively have been adjusted under the RBA category. Whereas, respondent No. 9 Rakesh Kumar Shan has been selected under the RBA category having obtained 87.59 marks.

7. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondent No. 10 and 11 could not have been selected in the RBA category when under the RBA category the petitioner was available for selection. He ad

Click Here to Read the rest of this document