Selection of candidates with zero marks in a written competitive examination for public employment, while excluding a candidate with higher marks, is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16. The doctrine of non traverse applies to uncontroverted pleadings.

JUDGMENT

(JUDGMENT MADE BY V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.)

The appellants are the respondents in the writ petition.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to as per their ranks in the writ petition.

3. The petitioner approached this court seeking of a Mandamus, to direct the respondents to select and appoint him to the post of Gangman on par with other candidates appointed, pursuant to the notification No.1 of 2019 dated 07.03.2019 issued by the respondents.

4. The respondents had issued a notification on 07.03.2019. It was for the purpose of selecting 5000 persons to the post of Gangman. The petitioner, who belongs to a Scheduled Caste community, had applied for the said post. He had completed his education up to 11^th standard and had failed in his 12^th standard examination. He stated that he had secured 65 marks in the written examination conducted by the respondents and had also cleared the physical fitness test. Though he had been waiting for the appointment order, he had not been issued the same.

5. The petitioner alleged that, certain candidates, who had secured “zero” mark in the written examination, had been appointed as Gangman, whereas, the petitioner, who had obtained 65 marks and belonging to the PSTM category (Person who studied in Tamil Medium), had not been considered. He pleaded that failure to appoint him is arbitrary and, hence, sought for the aforesaid relief.

6. This court entertained this writ petition and issued notice to the respondents.

7. The respondents filed a counter affidavit opposing the writ petition.

8. The respondents admitted that the petitioner had participated in the physical fitness test and had also cleared the written examination with 65 marks. It stated that the petitioner had secured a rank card of 8543. It alleged that, although the petitioner applied under the Scheduled Caste - PSTM quota, had not produced the requisite certificates at the time of verification, and hence, he was considered only under the Scheduled Caste (General) category. Under the Scheduled Caste (General) category, the last selected candidate had secured rank of 8350 but the petitioner having secured with 8543 rank, he was not selected. It was further stated that the number of vacancies were 10,000 and 9,613 persons were recruited and the remaining 387 vacancies could not be filled up, due to non availability of candidates under the Differently Abled category. It pleaded that the writ deserves to be dismissed as the petitioner had not produced the certificates.

9. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit to the counter. He stated that on 07.09.2019, he was called for certificate verification, during which, he had produced all the requisite certificates to claim that he belongs to Scheduled Caste and was entitled to considered under PSTM reservation. It was only thereafter, that the checklist was filled up by the respondents on the official website. After being satisfied with the petitioner’s claim under the SC-PSTM category, he was permitted to attend the physical fitness test on the very same day. After he had cleared the physical fitness test, a hall ticket was issued for the written examination held on 15.03.2020. He asserted that the contention of the respondents, that the petitioner had not produced the PSTM certificate, is false, as is clear from the checklist, maintained by the respondents.

10. To the reply affidavit filed by the petitioner, the respondents filed an additional counter. It was pointed out that, the marks secured in the examination is not essential, since the post of Gangman is only going to indulge in duties such as digging, erection of poles and other allied non-technical manual works. The fact that only 387 vacancies were available as against the post for reservation for Differently Abled Persons was reiterated.

11. Upon completion of pleadings, the learned Single Judge took up the writ for disposal.

12. The learned Single Judge took note of the fact that the respondents had not disputed th