Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Satyam Bharati vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjd/014023) on 8 May, 2023
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/014023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3618/2023
Satyam Bharati S/o Late Shri Rukum Pal, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of Village / Post Bijauri, Tehsil Etah, District
Etawah (Up).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Secondary Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Directorate, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service
Selection Board, Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan
State Agriculture Managing Institution Campus,
Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Yashpal Khileree.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinit Sanadhyay.
Mr. Hemant Choudhary, GC.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order 08/05/2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by a judgment of this court rendered in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3592/2023 (Yamini Yadav v/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 05.04.2023.
Accordingly, for the self same reasons, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms as in Yamini Yadav (supra) in the following terms:- (Downloaded on 09/05/2023 at 10:26:17 PM)
[2023/RJJD/014023] (2 of 5) [CW-3618/2023] "13. Indisputably, the petitioner has claimed reservation under the Rules of 2018. A perusal of the substantive provision contained in Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018, which reads thus:-
"5.Reservation of Vacancies- (1) In every establishment 4% of the vacancies of direct recruitment in the cadre shall be reserved for persons or class of persons with benchmark disabilities according to the section 34 of the Act. In the posts identified for each disability by the Government of India under section 33 and such reservation shall be treated as horizontal reservation and the vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities shall be maintained as a separate class:
Provided that where the nomenclature of any post in the State Government is different from the post in Government of Indian or nay post in the State Government does not exist in any department of the Government of India, the matter shall be referred to the Committee constituted under rule 6 fro identification of the equivalent post in the State Government. The Committee shall identify the equivalent post on the basis of nature of job and responsibility of each post.
(2) Reservation in posts identified for one or more categories,-
(a) If a post is identified suitable only for one category of disability, reservation in that post shall be given to persons with that disability only;
(b) Reservation of 4% shall not be reduced in such cases and total reservation in the post will be given to persons suffering from the disability for which it has been identified;
(c) If in case the post is identical suitable for two categories of disabilities, reservation shall be distributed between persons with those categories equally, as far as possible. (3) Maintenance of Rosters,-
(a) All establishments shall maintain a separate 100 point roster register for (Downloaded on 09/05/2023 at 10:26:17 PM) [2023/RJJD/014023] (3 of 5) [CW-3618/2023] determining/effecting reservation for the persons with benchmark disabilities.
(b) The register shall have cycle of 100 points and each cycle of 100 points shall be divided into four blocks, comprising the following points;
1st Block- Point No.1 to point No.25 2nd Block- Point No.26 to point No.50 3rd Block- Point No.51 to point No.75 4th Block- Point No.76 to point No.100 The above block shall be earmarked and reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities- one point for each of the three categories of benchmark disabilities mentioned in clauses (a),
(b) and (c) and one point for categories of benchmark disabilities mentioned in clauses (d) and (e) of sub-section(1) of section 34.
(c) All the vacancies shall be entered in the relevant roster register which shall be maintained by the head of the establishment.
(d) After all the 100 points of the roster are covered, a fresh cycle of 100 points shall start."
14. A perusal of Rule 5 of the Rules of 2018 leaves no room for ambiguity that the reservation for PH category is a horizontal reservation and it has no nexus with the residence of a person.
15. The residence of a person is significant or relevant in the case of caste based reservation, because the Constitutional Provision and notification issued thereunder requires a person to be a resident of that State in order to claim caste based reservation. It is the backdrop of the Constitutional Provision so also in light of catena of decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and this Court, that a person residing out of the State cannot claim caste based reservation in the State of Rajasthan. However, in absence of any such stipulation in the Constitution or (Downloaded on 09/05/2023 at 10:26:17 PM) [2023/RJJD/014023] (4 of 5) [CW-3618/2023] under the Rules of 2018, the State cannot deny a candidate of a State other than the State of Rajasthan to claim benefit of reservation under the Rules of 2018.
16. Almost similar situation came up for consideration before a coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Amar Kumari vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7512/2022), where the issue was in relation to a candidate belonging to EWS - Economically Weaker Section and this Court has held that a female migrating to State of Rajasthan is entitled for reservation for consideration of her candidature under EWS category.
17. In the instant case also, the petitioner has been denied appointment solely on account of his being resident of U.P.
18. According to this Court, the State's action is not only illegal and contrary to Rules of 2018 but also against the federal structure of the State and violation of Article 16(2) of the Constitution of India. The State's action amounts to denial of appointment on the basis of residence of a person, which has been held to be illegal by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of decision including the judgment dated 17.07.2001 rendered in the case of Ganga Ram Moolchandani vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. [Appeal (Civil) No. 6469 of 1998] (2001) 6 SCC 89.
19. As an upshot of the discussion foregoing, the present writ petition is allowed.
20. The respondents are directed to issue appointment order to the petitioner on the post of Basic Computer (Downloaded on 09/05/2023 at 10:26:17 PM) [2023/RJJD/014023] (5 of 5) [CW-3618/2023] Instructor within a period of four weeks from today, if he is otherwise eligible.
21. The petitioner shall be entitled for notional benefits from the date of issuance of first select list.
22. The stay petition also stands disposed of".
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 171-AnilSingh/-
(Downloaded on 09/05/2023 at 10:26:17 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)