K.M Joseph, C.J (Oral):— The writ petition has been filed seeking the following prayers:
“a) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari commanding the Respondents to quash the selection of Respondent No. 3 at the post of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.) vide Notification No. 57/41.Gopan/PCS(J)/2013-14 dated 28.11.2014 issued by Respondent No. 2 herein.
b) Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to make selection of the Petitioner under Uttarakhand Female OBC sub Category by extending horizontal reservation quota in favour of Petitioner being only entitled Uttarakhand Female OBC (Cat-UF OBC) Category candidate as per merit list and as per category options of the candidates.
c) Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 2 to amend the various Cut off marks category wise published vide letter No. 57/41(3) dated 28.11.2014 to the extent of Petitioner's merit marks after Petitioner is declared selected under Uttarakhand Female OBC (Cat-UF OBC) Category in the interests of justice to the Petitioner.
d) Issue an appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent No. 1 to not to issue appointment order in favour of Respondent No. 3 till the pendency of this Writ Petition otherwise Petitioner shall suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by any other means.”
2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is as follows:
Petitioner participated in a selection for appointment to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) conducted by the second respondent, namely, Public Service Commission. The procedure for selection is a preliminary examination, followed by a main examination and, finally, culminating in interview of those, who are entitled to participate in the interview. Petitioner secured 483 marks. Her case, in nutshell, is that three vacancies were reserved for the Other Backward Class and, even there, one vacancy was reserved for OBC Uttarakhand Female. Petitioner applied under the category of OBC Uttarakhand Female; but, she was not selected and, instead, respondent No. 3 was selected.
3. Per contra, the stand taken by the Public Service Commission in the counter affidavit is as follows:
“4. That it may be stated that the respondent no. 3 Km. Shama Parveen in her online application candidature form, has claimed herself to be a candidate of other backward class category, but she has not claimed the benefit of sub category of Uttarakhand women category under other backward class category.
6. That per requisition and advertisement, there were three posts reserved for other backward class category and since, 30% reservation to Uttarakhand Women sub category is admissible in accordance to prevalent government order in each and every category, as such, out of three posts, one post was reserved for Uttarakhand Women sub category in other backward class category. True copy of the advertisement dated 28.9.2013 has been filed by the petitioner as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition.
7. That it may be stated that after the recruitment process, final select list was declared on 28.11.2014 merit-wise and category-wise. True copy of the select list has already been filed by the petitioner as annexure no. 5 to the writ petition.
8. That the result itself reveals that the respondent no. 3 has been declared selected at serial no. 21 in the select list as an OBC candidate not as OBC (Uttarakhand Female) candidate.
9. That one Sahista Banu has been selected in OBC (Uttarakhand Female Category) and her name is figured at serial no. 19 of the select list.
10. That per merit (1) Nadeem Ahmad at serial no. 17 scored 541 marks, (2) Shama Parveen, serial no. 21 scored 507 marks, have been selected as OBC candidate and Sahista Banu scored 531 marks, has been selected as OBC (Uttarakhand Female) Category, whereas the petitioner has obtained only 483 marks, as such, she has not been selected for the said post. Thus, the writ petition of the petitioner is totally misconceived and liable to be dismissed.”
4. Petitioner has also filed a rejoinder affidavit.
5. We have heard Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. N.S Pundir, learned counsel appearing for the Public Service Commission; and Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that one Afiya Mateen, who secured 571 marks, should be considered in the General Category. As far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, she did not apply under the category of OBC (Uttarakhand Female) and she could not be considered for the said category. Learned counsel would, further, submit that the cut-off marks fixed for OBC category is 507; whereas, strangely, the cut-off marks for OBC (Uttarakhand Female), which is a horizontal category, is higher, namely, 531. This could never be, runs the argument.
7. The learned Senior Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 3 would point out that there is no merit in the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, as, even going by the cut-off marks fixed for OBC category, petitioner has not secured the cut-off marks fixed for OBC category, namely, 507, as she has secured 483 marks.
8. We have noted what has been done by the Public Service Commission in paragraph 10 of its counter affidavit. That is to say, a male person, belonging to the OBC category, who secured 541 marks, was ranked at No. 1 position and has been appointed against one of the two vacancies reserved by way of vertical reservation for OBC category. The second person considered in the vacancy reserved for OBC (vertical reservation) was respondent No. 3, namely, Shama Parveen, who secured 507 marks. Quite clearly, the said persons have secured more marks than the petitioner. It is important to notice that there is no case for the petitioner that the aforesaid two persons, who have been accommodated against the two vacancies reserved for OBC (vertical) category, should have been accommodated in the General Category by virtue of their having secured more marks than anyone in the General Category. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to their being accommodated against the two vacancies meant for OBC (vertical) category. One out of the three vacancies, as noted, was reserved for OBC (Uttarakhand Female) Category. In the vacancy, which is at the center of the controversy, Sahista Banu has been accommodated. Sahista Banu, admittedly, has secured 531 marks in the main examination combined with the interview; whereas, the petitioner, admittedly, as secured 483 marks. Sahista Banu had also applied for being considered under OBC (Uttarakhand Female) Category. Therefore, having secured more marks; both having opted for being considered under OBC (Uttarakhand Female) Category (horizontal reservation); and the petitioner having secured lesser marks, Sahista Banu being selected against the vacancy under OBC (Uttarakhand Female) Category cannot, in any way, be faulted. As far as respondent No. 3 is concerned, she was considered under the OBC Category. She has secured higher marks. She has not applied for being considered under OBC (Uttarakhand Female) Category. Against her, petitioner cannot have any complaint, as she has secured far higher marks than the petitioner. We see no merit in the contention that the cut-off marks for OBC (Uttarakhand Female) Category should have been lesser. At any rate, it does not appear to make any difference in the facts of the case, as, by any standard, petitioner has secured lesser marks than the person, who has been selected under OBC (Uttarakhand Female) Category.
9. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.