The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of scrupulously following the rule of reservation in the selection and appointment process, and the dismissal of a petition based on incorrect contentions of non-compliance with the rule of reservation.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Writ Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry under SCA category or PH Ortho category in application of Rule of Reservation and roster as per the Government orders within a time frame to be fixed by this Honourable Court.)

1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is to direct the Respondents to consider the Petitioner for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry under SCA category or PH Ortho category in application of Rule of Reservation and roster as per the Government orders.

2. The petitioner states that he is fully qualified for selection and appointment to the post of Assistant Professor, Chemistry. The petitioner completed M.Sc., in Chemistry and also M.Phil., He passed State Level Eligibility Test (SLET) in the year 2012. The petitioner participated in the process of selection. He is a differently abled person, suffering 50% of Disability in his right leg. The respondents, while undertaking the process of selection, had not followed the rule of reservation. Therefore, the petitioner was deprived of his opportunity for selection to the Post of Assistant Professor, Chemistry.

3. The learned Special Government Pleader appearing on behalf of the respondents objected the said contention by stating that the presumptive statement made by the petitioner is incorrect. The Rule of Reservation was scrupulously followed. 200-Point Roster was adopted, while undertaking the process of selection. The procedures as contemplated for award of marks and selection was also followed by the Board during the relevant point of time. In this regard, the first respondent/Teacher Recruitment Board filed an additional counter affidavit, which reads as under:

“In the notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board, the Board categorically informed that communal reservation shall be followed as per G.O.Ms.No.65, P & A R (K) Department dated 27.05.2009. In the 200 point roster, the roster point upto 205 has been utilized for the recruitment year 2010. For the current year recruitment 2012-2013 the roster point starts from 206 and end with 298 point within the above roster point, the communal turn of SCA (G) reserved in turn No.232 and 266. Thus, the Board allotted 2 posts for the SCA (G) communal turn for the post of Assistant Professor in Chemistry in the notification of the Teachers Recruitment Board. The rules of reservation were scrupulously followed in all the recruitments conducted by the Board and there is no violation or deviation by the Board as averred by the petitioner.”

4. It is brought to the notice of this Court that the certificate verification and the interview were concluded in the year 2013-14 and the selected candidates were also joined.

5. In view of the fact that the rule of reservation was followed by the authorities at the time of selection for appointment to the Post of Assistant Professor, Chemistry, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the selection process. The contention of the petitioner that the rule of reservation was not followed by the authorities are incorrect and the turn for a particular category was considered in accordance with the 200 Point Roster system, the petitioner has raised an unnecessary objection that the rule of reservation was not followed. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as such sought for.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.