2. Ms. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that pursuant to an advertisement dated 26.12.2012, the petitioner and five other candidates submitted their application forms for the post of Peon under the Scheduled Caste category as one post of Peon was reserved for the Scheduled Caste category. She further argued that the criteria for direct recruitment were marks obtained in Class 5th. According to the advertisement, bonus marks would be awarded for higher education, and bonus marks would also be given for work experience with Nagar Panchayat. She also argued that a merit list was prepared and respondent No. 3 was placed at serial No.1 as he secured 67.2 marks. She further contended that the petitioner was placed at serial No. 6 as he secured 66 marks. Ms. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner also contended that five marks were wrongly awarded to respondent No. 3 for experience. If five marks were deducted from the marks awarded to respondent No. 3, remaining five candidates had secured more marks than respondent No. 3. She further stated that in return filed by respondents No. 2 & 3, no document concerning experience has been placed on record and it appears that without there being any foundation, five marks were awarded to respondent No. 3. Thus, she prayed that the entire selection and appointment of respondent No. 3 may be quashed and the respondent authorities may be directed to issue a fresh merit list.
