The judgment established that a candidate who had secured higher marks could not be deprived of the right to be considered for appointment, and the insufficiency of information imparted was taken as the basis for being considered for appointment.

JUDGMENT

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The brief facts of the case are, that respondent No. 3 had issued an advertisement No. 4057 dated 8th February, 2014, for the purposes of initiating the process of recruitment on Group-C posts in the different Government Departments of the State of Uttarakhand, all the posts, which lie outside the purview of the Public Service Commission.

2. The petitioner submits, that since he held the requisite qualification, which was required for the purposes of eligibility for recruitment on the post of Cane Commissioner in the Sugar Cane Department, he would be entitled to be considered for appointment, as against the post Code-98 and Department Code-130 as per the advertisement dated 08.02.2014 . Hence, the petitioner submitsm that he has submitted his candidature by filing an application in that regard within an appropriate time. He further submits that, after scrutinization of his testimonial, the petitioner was issued with an admit card; to take the written examination and he was assigned with the Roll No. 1988210401. Under the strength of the admit card, admittedly he had participated in the process of examination which was conducted on 16th October, 2016, as a result thereto, 29 candidates were declared selected and successful and they were called upon for the purposes of verification of their document.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, as against the name of those candidates, who stood successful in the selection process, the last candidate, who belonged to the Scheduled Castes category had scored 48.5 marks.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite of the fact that he had obtained 48.75 marks, i.e. higher than the marks, which were obtained by the last selected candidate of Scheduled Castes category, the petitioner should have been included in the select list and he should have been invited for the document verification. Having not done so, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition, praying for the following reliefs :-

"i) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari to quash the selection of the respondent no.3 and further be please to direct the respondent no.2 to declare the petitioner as selected candidate for the post of Cane Supervisor post Code-98.

ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding / directing the respondent no.2 to recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment for the post of Cane Supervisor post Code-98 in Sugar & Cane Department, Government Department and the petitioner obtained more marks from the respondent no.3.

iii) Issue any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iv) Cost of the petition is awarded in favour of the petitioner."

5. Initially, when the Writ Petition was argued at the admission stage, the Coordinate Bench prima facie found that the petitioner has scored higher marks than the last candidate selected in the category and notices were issued and the counter affidavit was called.

6. The petitioner had taken steps for effecting services on the respondent No.3, who was the last candidate whose name was appearing in the select list, but despite of service of notice, neither any undelivered envelope has been received back, nor the respondent No.3 has put in appearance, thus the Court has got no other options except to proceed ex parte against him, as it would be deemed that respondent No.3 was satisfactorily served with the notices.

7. The petitioner has submitted, that since the record shows that he has scored higher marks, hence he had the privilege to be considered for appointment as a Scheduled Castes candidate belonging to "Jatav" caste, but non-inclusion of his name was flawed and hence, he has sought a writ of mandamus also, that respondents may be directed to call upon the petitioner to be considered for appointment on the post of Cane Sugar Supervisor.

8. On the contrary