The importance of timely filing of petitions and the consideration of the petitioner's employment status in determining the merits of the case.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5.

2. This petition is filed by the petitioner to issue any appropriate writ, order or direction preferably a Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondent corporation in selecting the 5th respondent to the post of Welder pursuant to notification No.3/2011 in spite of securing lesser marks than the petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the selection of the 5th respondent by calling for the records relating to the selection process of the Welders in the said notification and appoint the petitioner in the place of the 5th respondent.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The petitioner belongs to SC community. The respondent corporation issued a notification/advertisement No.3/2011 inviting inter-alia applications for the post of Welder-5 vacancies out of which 2 vacancies are for General, 1 for OBC category, one for SC and another for ST category. The petitioner applied for the post of Welder and attended trade test and oral interview and secured total marks of 79. The petitioner was under the bonafide impression that the respondent being a Government of India enterprise might have done the selections in a fair and just manner.

b) The petitioner came to know in the 2nd week of March, 2014 that great injustice has been done to him i.e. though he stood 3rd in the merit list, he has been excluded to the benefit of general category candidate i.e. the 5th respondent. The petitioner filed an application under RTI Act on 22.03.2014. The Central Public Information Officer of the respondent corporation replied that in Col.No.5, the 5th respondent, who belongs to general category secured 70.25 marks, less than 9 marks.

c) The only grievance of the petitioner is that the 5th respondent selected under the general category though he secured nine marks less than him. The respondent corporation ought to have selected the two top scorers in the general category irrespective of their category, which is settled law. If the respondents had selected two top scorers in the general category, Sri T.Padma Reddy would have remained in the selection being the top scorer and one Sri K.Srinivas, who belongs to SC, who is next in the merit by scoring 79.2 marks ought to have been selected in the general category and if the selection has been done in this manner, the petitioner would have got selection in SC category being the highest scorer in SC category.

d) The respondents being State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India as held by the Apex Court, their every action should not only be fair, legitimate and above-board but should be without any affection or aversion and it should neither be suggestive of discrimination nor even apparently give an impression of bias, favouritism and nepotism and anything done in undue haste can also be terms as arbitrary and cannot be condoned in law and in essence, the action/order of the State or State instrumentality would stand vitiated if it lacks bona fides as it would only be a case of colourable exercise of power.

e) By virtue of non selection, the petitioner is put to serious and irreparable loss. The selection process adopted by the respondent corporation is per se illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be interdicted and set aside. Hence, this writ petition.

4. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 2 to 4, in brief, is as follows:

a) The writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of delay and latches. The petitioner was not selected against a post reserved for SC quota as some other person, who scored more marks than the petitioner was selected and appointed. The petitioner waited for three long years and as an after thought filed the present writ petition.

b) The petitioner made an applica