Reserved category candidates can be appointed to Unreserved vacancies based on merit without violating recruitment rules or constitutional provisions.

JUDGMENT :

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India calling in question the common merit list dated 07.05.2016 published by the Registrar, Civil Courts, Sundargarh in connection with recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist for the year 2015-16.

2. The grievance of the petitioner pertains to the selection of one Itismita Bal (Roll No. JCC-071), who has been reflected as selected under the Unreserved category in the common merit list dated 07.05.2016, though she had applied for the post under the SEBC category. The petitioner contends that such placement under the Unreserved category resulted in her non-selection, despite her having applied under the Unreserved category pursuant to the advertisement.

The factual backdrop, shorn of unnecessary details, is that the Office of the District Judge, Sundargarh issued an advertisement dated 03.09.2015 inviting applications in the prescribed format from eligible candidates for recruitment to the posts of Junior Clerk-cum- Copyist, Junior Typist and Junior Stenographer (Grade-III), all belonging to Group-C category. The last date for submission of applications was fixed as 30.09.2015.

Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner submitted her application for the post of Junior Clerk-cum-Copyist under the Unreserved category. She was assigned Roll No. JCC-023 by letter dated 27.11.2015 and was permitted to appear in the written examination conducted on 20.12.2015.

Upon qualifying in the written examination, the petitioner was intimated vide letter dated 18.04.2016 and was called upon to appear in the computer test scheduled on 07.05.2016, with an indication that candidates qualifying therein would be required to appear in the viva- voce test on the same day. The petitioner participated in the computer test and, having qualified, also appeared in the viva-voce test held on 07.05.2016.

On 07.05.2016, the Registrar, Civil Courts, Sundargarh published the common merit list for the post of Junior Clerk-cum- Copyist. In the said merit list, the petitioner was placed at Serial No.5 under the Unreserved category, whereas Itismita Bal (Roll No. JCC- 071) was placed at Serial No.4 under the Unreserved category and was subsequently appointed.

3. The petitioner contends that since Itismita Bal had applied under the SEBC category, her selection and placement under the Unreserved category is contrary to the terms of the advertisement and the applicable recruitment rules, and has resulted in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has advanced elaborate submissions on merits, primarily alleging undue favouritism and manipulation in the selection process. It is contended that Opposite Party No.2, who had applied under the SEBC category, relied upon an SEBC certificate issued in the year 2012, i.e., nearly four years prior to publication of the merit list dated 07.05.2016. According to the petitioner, the said certificate ought to have been duly scrutinized and verified at the time of preparation of the merit list to ascertain whether Opposite Party No.2 continued to satisfy the criteria of Socially and Educationally Backward Class and had not entered the creamy layer during the intervening period.

It is further submitted that the affidavit furnished by Opposite Party No.2 before the competent authority for issuance of the SEBC certificate specifically stated that the certificate was to be utilized for the purpose of higher education. Despite such declaration, the same certificate was allegedly u