examinations and the interview and since he had given first preference for the post of Research/Reference Officer, he was offered appointment for the said post in the ST category. Petitioner had availed the benefit of reservation in ST category in the marks and for age relaxation, but could not be included in the list of selected candidates for the post of Executive/Legislative/ Committee/Protocol Officer, because 01 vacancy was reserved for PwD category with locomotor disability. No candidate in this category qualified the examination and hence the vacancy which was not confined to either the unreserved category or the reserved category, was carried forward to the subsequent recruitment year in terms of paragraph 12(b) of Recruitment and Conditions of Service Orders dated 07.09.2011 (‘R&CS Orders dated 07.09.2011’). In this context, reliance is also placed on paragraph 8.4 of DoPT O.M. dated 15.01.2018. It is further submitted that the candidate who was declared qualified against 15th vacancy secured more marks than the Petitioner i.e. 1116.6 marks and no unfair treatment was meted out to him. Insofar as the judgment relied on by learned counsel for the Petitioner is concerned, Mr. Gupta submits that the same is clearly distinguishable and inapplicable to the facts of this case as there the issue was reservation in the women category which works differently than the reservations in ST and PwD category.
