Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dara Singh vs State Of Raj. And Ors. ... on 5 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:12450]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10365/2012
Dara Singh S/o Inder Singh, Aged about 33 Years, Resident of
271, Bharatnagar, Purani Abadi, District Sriganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, through, the Secretary to the Government
Department of Rural Development & Panchayati Raj Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Jila Parishad, Sriganganagar through, its Chief Executive
Officer.
3. Chief Executive Officer, Jila Parishad, Sriganganagar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Divik Mathur.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Vaishnav for Mr. Kuldeep
Vaishnav.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order(Oral) 05/03/2025
1. The petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks issuance of an appropriate writ, order, and/or direction commanding the respondents to prepare a fresh selection list by providing proper reservation for handicapped persons and to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) in the Special Backward Class, Physically Handicapped category, pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.02.2012.
2. Relevant facts first. The Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar issued an advertisement as above for the recruitment of 1038 Teacher Grade III posts (Level I & II). For Level II (Science-Maths), 236 posts were advertised, including 2 reserved posts for the Special (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:56:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12450] (2 of 5) [CW-10365/2012] Backward Class (SBC) and 7 posts for handicapped candidates. The petitioner, belonging to the Lavana Sikh community under the SBC category, applied for the Science-Maths post and duly submitted the online application. He appeared for the examination and secured 117.53 marks, placing him at merit No. 565. 2.1. After document verification and counseling, the final category-wise selection list was issued. In the Science-Maths subject, only three handicapped candidates were selected--one from the General category and two from the Other Backward Class (OBC). However, no reservation was provided for the SBC category. Two handicapped candidates with loco-motor disabilities were selected based on merit under the SC/ST category. 2.2. The petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent, highlighting the improper implementation of reservation for handicapped candidates, but to no avail. Hence the instant petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and gone through the case record.
4. Concededly, the petitioner was fully aware of the contents of the advertisement, which was the very basis of his applying for the post in question. It is only after he remained unsuccessful that he challenged his non-selection, primarily hinging his argument on the plank that, since sufficient number of 1% hearing-impaired and 1% visually impaired candidates were not available, the vacancies caused against the same ought to have been shifted to the locomotor disability category, to which he belongs. (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:56:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12450] (3 of 5) [CW-10365/2012]
5. The said argument is being noted only to be rejected for the reason that Clause 8(iii)(b) of the advertisement was amply clear viz. in case a vacancy is caused due to insufficient number of candidates, the same shall be carried forward to the next recruitment. For ready reference, the English translation of Clause 8(iii)(b), ibid, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"8. Reservation:-
(iii) For Persons with Disabilities:
(a) xxx --- xxx --- xxx
(b) The reservation for the posts designated for persons with
disabilities shall be horizontal in nature. This means that a candidate belonging to a specific category (Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribe /Other Backward Classes / Economically Weaker Sections /Special Backward Class, General Category) shall be accommodated within the same category."
Perusal of the above clearly reflects that the candidate is to be considered only in the category in which he had applied.
7. Concededly, the petitioner belongs to the vertical category of Special Backward Class (SBC), and within the SBC, he had opted for the horizontal category of locomotor disability.
8. Accordingly, in terms of the clause, ibid, his candidature had to be considered only in the SBC Physically Handicapped Locomotor category of 1% seats and same could not have been shifted to the other category, as is sought herein.
9. Moreover, what compounds the trouble of the petitioner is that he has neither challenged the aforesaid advertisement clause, either before or after the selection process, and he is seeking a mandamus in violation of the aforesaid clause, which has been applied across the board to all other candidates who may have been similarly situated as the petitioner. Accepting his plea would rather result in hostile discrimination qua those who are neither (Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:56:36 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12450] (4 of 5) [CW-10365/2012] before the Court nor, even otherwise, they challenged their non- selection going by the correct interpretation of Clause 8(iii)(b), ibid.
10. In this context, reference may also be had to the pointed stand taken in para 6 of the reply filed by the respondents which reads as under:
"6. That in reply to the contents of para no. 6 of the writ petition it is submitted that in the advertisement for the post of Teacher Grade III Level II (Class 6 to 8) Subject Science and Mathematics total No. posts were 236 and for the differently able person the post reserved came to seventh post in which for the differently able person horizontal reservation is applicable. That as per the horizontal reservation a candidate who belongs to a particular category is absorbed in his own category only (Point No. 8(III) (B) of the advertisement). That in the advertisement the posts for differently able person were not reserved category wise. That in the advertised posts of differently able person 3% posts are reserved and out of which for loco-motor (1%), hearing impaired (1%) and low vision (1%) in this way the posts of differently able persons are categorized. That the contention of petitioner that in SBC category the posts for differently able person were not shown are not admitted and it is submitted that in the rules the reservation for differently able person is provided under horizontal reservation and not as category wise reservation.
That in the advertised 7 posts of differently able person 3 posts was reserved for loco-motor candidates, 2 posts for hearing impaired candidates and 2 posts for low vision candidates. That in the select list of the General category of the said subject, on the basis of merit of differently able person one loco-motor candidate and in OBC category on the basis of merit of differently able person 2 loco-motor candidates was selected. In this way in both the categories 3 loco-motor candidates were selected on the basis of merit in the select list of General and OBC category. That in the select list of the SC and ST category 1-1 candidate of loco-motor was selected against the said category as per the merit amongst the selected candidates. That in the SBC (category 2 posts were advertised and the said were filled amongst the candidates of the SBC category on the basis of merit."
11. I am inclined to accept the aforesaid factual stand taken by the respondents, which has not been controverted by either filing any additional affidavit and/or rejoinder or any other material in support of the contention of the petitioner as pleaded in the petition.
(Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:56:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12450] (5 of 5) [CW-10365/2012]
12. As an upshot, in view of the discussion contained in the preceding part of the order coupled with the uncontroverted stand taken in the affidavit, no grounds for interference are made out.
13. Petition is accordingly dismissed.
14. In parting, I may hasten to add here that, even otherwise, at this belated stage, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered since all the vacant posts have been filled up over the passage of time, if not in the same recruitment, then in the subsequent recruitments carried out by the respondents. Moreover, the selection records of the year 2012, when the recruitment process was initiated pursuant to the advertisement dated 24.02.2012, have also been destroyed over the years, and it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate on the merits of the petitioner's claim in the absence thereof.
15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
7-Love/Jitender
Whether fit for reporting : Yes / No.
(Downloaded on 28/03/2025 at 09:56:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)