The court affirmed that the application of reservation should adhere to cadre strength and existing vacancies, rejecting claims for excessive reserved posts without basis.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. Pattanaik, J.

1. The present writ petition is at the behest of the petitioner assailing the impugned decision by order dated 9^th September, 2022 as at Annexure-9 of opposite party No.2 and the selection and appointment of opposite party No.3 and further to direct the opposite parties to include him in the select list in SEBC category with an appointment order issued in his favour for the post of the Block Social Security Officer (BSSO) within a stipulated period on the grounds inter alia that such decision of the authority concerned is erroneous and legally untenable and hence, liable to be interfered with and set at naught.

2. In fact, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-9. As per the pleading on record, opposite party No.2 had published an advertisement to fill up 151 posts of BSSO on contractual basis. The advertisement was published on 1^st November, 2017. Although, as per the advertisement, 151 vacancies were advertised but in so far as SEBC category is concerned, only five posts were reserved, whereas, according to the reservation rules, 11.25% of the total posts should have been earmarked for SEBC candidates and hence, there has been a violation in applying the same. It is further claimed that two of the Ex-Servicemen (ESM) candidates, who secured less marks than the petitioner were selected against SEBC reserved category. The claim of the petitioner is that the said two ESM candidates availed reservation when law does not permit a candidate to avail both vertical and horizontal reservations at one time. The petitioner further pleaded that as he secured more marks than opposite party No.3 and one Saroj Kanta Choudhury of SEBC category, he should have been selected on merit but instead opposite party No.2 misinterpreting the reservation rules selected them and therefore, such selection is not sustainable in the eye of law and violative of Article(s) 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, 1950.

3. The undisputed facts are that the advertisement for the recruitment in question was published on 1^st November, 2017 by opposite party No.2 and it was in respect of the posts advertised for the vacancies with following break ups, such as, UR-85, SEBC-5, SC-28 and ST-33. As per the said advertisement at Annexure-1, six vacancies were reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PwDs), six for ESM and two to be filled up from among the Sports Person (SP). The petitioner applied for the post of BSSO as SEBC unreserved candidate and cleared the Preliminary Examination, Mains and finally, the Computer Skill Test and was called for certificate verification as per the notification i.e. Annexure-3 dated 6^th December, 2021. The provisional select list was published on 31^st December, 2021 by a notification at Annexure-4 releasing the names of 151 candidates and the last selection mark for ESM was 128, whereas, for SEBC non-reserved, it was 151 and the name of the petitioner did not find a mention therein.

4. The petitioner since was not selected, information under the RTI Act was obtained and it was provided as per Annexure-6. According to the petitioner, according to the information shared with him, he scored 150 marks and ESM candidates secured 128 marks. Subsequent to such information received, the petitioner submitted a representation i.e. Annexure-7 to opposite party No.2 and as no decision was taken thereon, he filed W.P.(C) No.11556 of 2022, which was disposed of on 29^th July, 2022 with a direction to consider it within a stipulated period. Upon receiving the Court’s order at Annexure-8, opposite party No.2 with a decision vide Annexure-9 reje