Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Balram Suthar vs State & Ors on 1 December, 2017
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14367 / 2017
Balram Suthar S/o Mangi Lal Suthar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Kulthana, Tehsil & District Pratapgarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.
3. The Coordinator Teacher Grade III, Examination 2016 for
Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanwar Singh Rathore
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Deepika Purohit, for Mr. PR Singh
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 01/12/2017
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :-
"A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying the selection and appointment of the petitioner for the post of Teacher Grade III Level-II subject English OBC TSP Category in pursuance of the advertisement 2016 and amended advertisement 2017 may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondnets may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process and provide the appointment on post of Teacher Grade-III Level II subject English TSP unreserved Category advertisement 2016 and amended advertisement 2017, (2 of 7) [CW-14367/2017] with all consequential benefits.
C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents given benefit for the petitioner OBC category as relaxation under Rule 265 of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj.
D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the consider petitioner submitted new application form as per previous submitted application form as well with the same ID.
E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
F. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the controversy is squarely covered by judgment of Vijay Raj Anjana Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4163/2017 (decided on 20.11.2017), the judgment reads as under :-
" 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :-
"It is, therefore, most humble prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by appropriate writ, order or direction; the action of the respondents declaring the petitioner ineligible on the ground of overage may kindly be declared illegal and further respondents may kindly be directed to extent the benefit of age relaxation of five years in terms of Clause 10(1) of the advertisement (Annex.) to the petitioner and respondents also directed to consider (3 of 7) [CW-14367/2017] the candidature of petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III as per his merit.
Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
2. The applications were invited in September, 2013 in the recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level-I and Level-II. As per Clause 10(1) of the advertisement, persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC/SBC category and women candidates are entitled to age relaxation of five years in upper age limit. The petitioner after going through selection process secured 142.16 marks and in all district merits, petitioner stands at Serial No.18. Since, the petitioner was having more marks then the TSP General category, he was seeking such appointment, which was being denied on the ground of being overage.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Shivlal Labana VS. State of Rajasthan & Anr. decided by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 14.06.2016 ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3019/2015 & 3020/2015), the order reads as under :-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
By way of these two writ petitions, the petitioners Shivlal Labana and Shyam Lal Mathat have approached this Court with a prayer for being extended the benefit of age relaxation in the recruitment process initiated by the respondent Panchayati Raj Department for filling up vacancies in the cadre of Teacher Grade-III vide notification issued in September, 2013. The terms and (4 of 7) [CW-14367/2017] conditions of the recruitment notification required that the aspirant should not have crossed the age of 35 years as on 1.1.2014. Owing to this condition, the respondents have denied the petitioners from staking a claim for the advertised posts on the pretext that they had become overage.
The petitioner Shivlal Labana is a resident of Village Akhepur, Tehsil and District Pratapgarh and belongs to Special Backward Class (SBC) and his date of birth is 10.12.1978. The petitioner Shyam Lal Mathat is a resident of Village Kulmipura, Post Dhamotar, District Pratapgarh and belongs to Other Backward Class (OBC) and his date of birth is 15.6.1978. Thus, as on 1.1.2014, both the petitioners had crossed the age of 35 years. The petitioners were both qualified for being appointed as Teacher Grade III (Level-I and Level-II). Both applied for selection in the questioned recruitment process and secured more than the declared cut off for their respective categories. The petitioners have set up a case that as per Clause 10(1) of the recruitment notification, persons belonging to SC, ST, OBC & SBC categories are entitled to age relaxation of 5 years in the upper age limit. The petitioners have alleged that after document verification was carried out pursuant to their selection on the basis of their standing in the merit list, they were communicated a decision that as they had crossed the upper age limit, they could not be appointed in the ongoing recruitment process, upon which, they have approached this Court by way of these writ petitions.
The respondents have filed separate replies to the writ petitions wherein, they have taken a plea that no posts were reserved for categories to which the petitioners belong. As such, the petitioners are not entitled to claim any age relaxation at all.
(5 of 7) [CW-14367/2017] Mr.Ramesh Purohit, learned counsel representing the petitioners, contended that the age relaxation admissible under Clause 10(1) has no connection with the reservation of the posts. The said age relaxation is available to all candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/SBC categories across the board irrespective of the quota of vacancies reserved for the particular category. He further contended that the petitioner Shivlal belongs to SBC category and the petitioner Shyam Lal belongs to OBC category. Both hail from the TSP area. The recruitment notification clearly provides for TSP area reservation and thus, the stance taken by the respondents regarding no reservation being provided for the category in which the petitioners applied, is totally unfounded and baseless. He thus urged that the respondents' decision not to extend the benefit of age relaxation to the petitioners is unjust, arbitrary and mechanical and also suffers from a total non- application of mind. Thus, he prayed that the writ petitions may be allowed in the terms prayed for.
Per contra, learned AAG Mr.S.S. Ladrecha for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. He submitted that the decision taken by the respondents not to extend the benefit of age relaxation to the petitioners is perfectly justified and consonant with the terms of the recruitment notification. He thus urged that the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed Heard and considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and perused the material available on record. It is not disputed that the petitioners were both selected in the questioned selection process on the basis of their performance. Condition no.10(1) of the advertisement around which, the entire controversy hinges, reads as below:-
10.आय :-
(6 of 7) [CW-14367/2017] रजसन प चयत रज ननयम 1996 क ननयम 265 क अनसर आय क दष स वह अभय पत हग जजसक आय द#नक 01.01.2014 क 18 वर% स अनय'न ह त 35 वर% क आय प'र% नहककय हन चदहए।
ननमनल.ख 0 त शर क अभयर%य 3 क ननमननसर आय सम म 4 छ'ट #य ह 7:-
1. रजसन रजय क अ.ज/अ.ज.ज./अ.षप.व./षव.षप.व. क पररअभय य समनय पवग% क मदह. अभय क ल.य ऊपर आय सम म 4 5 वर% क छ'ट।
Thus, the above condition clearly provides that relaxation in the upper age limit shall be admissible across the board to SC/ST/OBC/SBC and women candidates belonging to Rajasthan. The age relaxation as provided in the above condition has no connection with the reservation in the particular category of posts advertised.
The petitioners hail from TSP area and as per Clause 8 of the recruitment notification, TSP area reservation has been provided to the candidates hailing from such areas. Therefore, the stance taken by the respondents that no reservation was available to the petitioners in the questioned recruitment is also fallacious. Furthermore, the age relaxation which is provided in the above quoted clause 10(1) of the recruitment notification has no link with reservation. Age relaxation is to be extended to all the SC/ST/OBC/SBC and women candidates belonging to Rajasthan State. Therefore, while staking a claim for appointment in the questioned recruitment process, the petitioners would definitely be entitled to vie for the seats reserved for the TSP area and also to age relaxation of 5 years in view of Clause 10 of the recruitment notification. The action of the respondents in refusing to extend appropriate age (7 of 7) [CW-14367/2017] relaxation to the petitioners inspite of their entitlement is totally illegal and arbitrary.
Consequently, these writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to extend the benefit of age relaxation of 5 years in terms of Clause 10(1) to both the petitioners and to consider their candidature for appointment on the posts of Teacher Grade-III as per their standing in merit. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from today.
Stay petitions also stand disposed of.
No order as to cost.
A copy of this order be placed in both the files."
4. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner who is resident from TSP area and belongs to OBC category is entitled for age relaxation of five years in terms of Clause 10 (1) and therefore, the respondents are directed to consider the candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III as per their standing in merit and necessary order in this regard shall be passed within a period of eight weeks from today.
6. This misc. petition is disposed of. The stay petition is also disposed of."
3. In light of the afore-quoted judgment, this writ petition is allowed in the same terms.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. sudheer