ORDER

Challenging the advertisement No.01/2021 dated 22.01.2021 issued by the 2nd respondent, the present writ petition has been filed.

2. The case of the petitioner is that the 2nd respondent has invited applications for one post of Assistant General Manager (Finance) reserved for the scheduled caste category preferably Arundhathiyar through advertisement No. 03/2020 dated 18.11.2020 in a Tamil Newspaper Daily Thanthi dated 19.11.2020. As per the advertisement, a candidate who is a Chartered Accountant and registered in ICAI with minimum 10 years experience is eligible to apply. The petitioner having prescribed qualification and belonging to the scheduled caste category applied through online on 21.11.2020. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent has issued a new advertisements dated 15.12.2020 and 22.01.2021 for the same post for BC (OBCM) category and appointed the 3rd respondent in the said post on

08.02.2021.

3. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ought not to have changed the category as per whims and fancies from SC to BC (OBCM). The procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent is illegal, arbitrary and against Article 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence the writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has studied M.Com F.CA., and practicing as a Chartered Accountant for the past 12 years and belongs to Scheduled Caste category. The petitioner is fully eligible to the post of Assistant General Manager (Finance) called for by the 2nd respondent vide advertisement no. 03/2020, dated 18.11.2020 in Tamil Newspaper Daily Thanthi. The 2nd respondent has arbitrarily changed the category from SC to BC (OBCM) and from SC to BC (OBCM) as per rotation and issued advertisements dated 15.12.2020 and 22.01.2021 respectively and appointed the 3rd respondent in the said post by order dated 08.02.2021, which is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be quashed.

5. Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent in support of the statement made in the counter affidavit, has submitted that the 2nd respondent has adopted the 200 point roster as per Government norms and the methodology adopted for selection process which is well within the ambit of service Rules of SIPCOT. There were four vacancies in the posts of Assistant General Manager in SIPCOT as on 19.10.2020. As per roster, the first rotation of 200 turns i. General Turn – Priority – General, (ii). Scheduled Caste (Arunthathiyars on preferential basis) – Priority, (iii). Most Backward Class & De-notified Community -Priority & (iv) Backward Class (other than Backward class Muslim). Accordingly, the advertisements were published and appointments were made by the respondents.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has further submitted that the respondent had received only one application through online for the post of Assistant General Manager (Finance) as on 09.12.2020 (last date). The respondent could not process and select the qualified candidate with one applicant, hence the respondent had cancelled the notification on 10.12.2020 and pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.12.2020 for the said post called for under the BC (other than Backward Class Muslim) category, the respondent had received three applications, out of which the 3rd respondent was selected for the said post as per prevailing Rules, therefore there is no violation of procedure as contended by the learned learned counsel for the petitioner.

7. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the 1st respondent has relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shakaran Dash Vs. Union of India, dated 30.04.1991 reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the candidate included in merit has no indefeasible right to appoint even if a vacancy exists. The relevant portion (para 7 & 11) of the judgment is extracted hereunder;

“ 7. It is not correct