ORDER :

Heard, Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms. Shivani Kapoor, learned AC to Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, the learned SC-II for the respondent-State.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioners have filed this writ petition for a direction to issue appointment letters to the petitioners on the post of Lady Supervisor in Santhal Pargana Division, Dumka.

4. Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners belong to backward caste category and they have applied for the post of Lady Supervisor in terms of the Advertisement for the said post. She submits that although the petitioners having secured the marks for appointment but the petitioners have not been appointed on the post. She further submits that the OBC candidates have not been considered in that appointment and in that view of the matter the direction may kindly be issued to appoint the petitioners on the post of Lady Supervisor.

5. Ms. Shivani Kapoor, the learned State counsel submits that six candidates have obtained 142 marks in the test examination. She further submits that Angangabi Sevika of highest age Champa Devi has been appointed on the post of Lady Supervisor out of the aforesaid six candidates who has obtained 142 marks against the available vacant post of Lady Supervisor. She further submits that the petitioner no.3 obtained only 140 marks. She submits that there were 42 posts of Lady Supervisor was available for the appointment out of Anganbari Sevika out of whom 21 posts was available for the unreserved category 19 posts were reserved for S.T. Category and 2 posts were reserved for S.C category. She further submits that the following category were appointed; General category-4, S.T.-3, B.C.+O.B.C.-14 that out of 21 unreserved posts, 14 candidates of B.C.+O.B.C have been appointed. She further submits that as the petitioners have got lessor marks and the OBC have already been appointed, no cause of interference is made out.

6. The Court has perused the documents as well as the statement made in the counter affidavit wherein specific statement has been made that the petitioners have received the lessor marks whereas the person who was having the higher age was given priority who got 142 marks in 6 candidates for the same marks. The bifurcation of the seats is also stated in the counter affidavit. This case is of the year 2010. The persons who have been appointed are not made party in the writ petition. A reference in this regard may be made in case of “Vishal Ashok Thorat & Ors. v. Rajesh Shrirambapu Fate & Ors.” in Civil Appeal No.5444 of 2019 [arising out of SLP (Civil) No.31957 of 2018] reported in 2019 SCC Online SC 886. Paragraph no.33 of the said judgment is quoted here-in-below :

“33. One more submission raised by the learned counsel for the appellant in civil appeal filed by Vishal Ahok Thorat needs to be noticed. The submission of the appellant is that respondent No.1 in his Writ Petition No.1270 of 2018 did not implead any of the selected candidates out of the list of 832. No selected candidate having been impleaded by respondent no.1, the High Court erred in issuing direction to modify and review the select list. The direction of the High Court in paragraph 51 is clearly against the interest of the appellants, who as per direction shall go out of the select list, the select list having been published on 31.03.2018 i.e., much before the date when respondent no.1 filed application for amendment in the writ petition for challenging the advertisement nos.2 of 2017 and 48 of 2017, he ought to have impleaded the selected candidates whose names were already published by the MPSC. Respondent No.1 without bringi