The selection process for reserved positions must adhere strictly to established cut-off marks for each category, and a candidate cannot claim entitlement based on comparative performance against candidates from another category.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 11^th November, 2019 as at Annexure-8 and to direct the opposite parties to appoint him as an Assistant Driver having participated in the selection process and to release all service and consequential benefits in his favour upon such appointment on the grounds inter alia that the decision of opposite party No.2 is not legally tenable, hence, liable to be interfered with and set aside.

2. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that an advertisement was published by opposite party No.3 to fill up 437 posts of Assistant Driver stipulating therein the eligibility criteria. A copy of the advertisement is at Annexure-1, referring to which, it is pleaded by the petitioner that he being an SEBC category candidate applied to be considered for appointment as Assistant Driver and although found to be meritorious, some of the candidates of the UR category securing less marks were selected with the merit list finally published as per Annexure-2. It is further claimed by the petitioner that information under the RTI Act was applied to him and it was furnished vide Annexure-3 and with such information received, it is alleged that on the face of record, illegality has been committed denying him the appointment, inasmuch as, the select list could not have been prepared in the manner contemplated. It is further claimed that the SEBC candidates secured more marks than the candidates of UR category but have not been selected, since, the petitioner secured 46.5 marks higher than the cut- off mark for the UR candidates. Against such selection and merit list prepared and as the petitioner was not successful, the same has been questioned.

3. In fact, the advertisement to fill up the posts of Assistant Driver in Odisha Police Motor Transport was published in the year 2013 and the result was declared on 17^th November, 2013 but, some of the Home Guard candidates filed O.A. No.3931(C) of 2013 in the Odisha Administrative Tribunal with a plea of 10% horizontal reservation having not been applied and while implementing the order dated 7^th May, 2014 passed therein, number of candidates earlier selected were terminated from service in the year 2015 on the ground that they had availed age and fee relaxation. Thereafter, O.A. No.4308(C) of 2014 was filed and disposed of with the select list being quashed followed by a direction to redraw the same. In compliance of the directions issued in the said O.A., a revised select list was published on 8^th April, 2016, wherein, 71 candidates were included with 55 candidates being delisted. According to the petitioner, even after redrawal of the revised select list, some of the candidates, who secured less marks than him were allowed to continue but he was not, despite a representation to opposite party No.2, who rejected it on the ground that the marks scored by him to be less than the cut-off mark for SEBC candidates.

4. The additional claim is that the selection process has not been accomplished in accordance with law. In fact, according to the petitioner, relaxation of age and fee are no relaxation as held by the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and another Vrs. State of U.P. and others (2010) 3 SCC 119, wherein, it has been observed that despite such relaxation, a reserved category candidate shall have to be considered against the posts earmarked for the unreserved and hence, eligible for open competition and in one of such cases, where a candidate of UR category secured less marks following a decision in W.P.(C) No.4101 of 2019, it has been confirmed by the Apex Court in SLP No.21074 of 2019 dismissing it on 5^th June, 202