Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Tejinder Pal Singh vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 18 September, 2013
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10049/2012
(Tejinder Pal Singh Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)
Date of Order : 18.09.2013
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, for the petitioner.
Mr. Mahendra Choudhary, for the respondents.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming his right of appointment on the ground that the appointments are not made in accordance with the reservation policy, therefore, the respondents may kindly be directed to re-cast the merit of Teacher Grade-III Level-II in English subject and provide appointment to the petitioner on the said post with all consequential benefits.
In para 7 of the writ petition, certain allegations are levelled by the petitioner with regard to violation of the reservation policy. However, in reply to para 7 of the writ petition, following facts are brought to the notice of this Court :-
"(7) That the averments contained in para no.7 of 2 the writ petition is not admitted in the manner averred because as per the advertisement for the post of level II English post, 15 posts were advertised for general category and out of 15, 11 posts were reserved for general candidates, 3 posts were reserved for general female candidate and 1 post was reserved for general widow candidate. In OBC category 6 posts were advertised and out of 6, 5 posts were reserved for general OBC and 1 post was reserved for OBC female. It is humbly submitted that as per decision taken in meeting dated 07.09.2011 of Zila Establishment Committee, 11 posts are for General candidates, hence, they were selected as per merit. Shri Ashok Kumar who was at S.No.4 in merit list was over age, hence, was not selected.
Three posts were reserved for remale candidates and as the three candidates out of in merit list of 11, belongs to female category, hence, next 3 female candidates were selected in general category. So far as posts reserved for OBC are concerned it is humbly submitted that 5 posts were reserved for OBC general and these posts were filled as per merit leaving aside Smt Balvinder Kaur as she has submitted the caste certificate of her husband. One post is reserved for female OBC hence was also filed as per merit. Thus, as per merit list enclosed the candidates from merit, S.No.1,2,3,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14 and 18 were given appointment. As already said candidate at merit No4 was not selected as he was overage. Due to non availability of General 3 Widow, candidate at merit No 18 was selected as at merit No 16 there was male candidate and on merit No 17, the candidate has submitted caste certificate of her husband and his candidature was rejected. Thus in general/open category, out of 15 candidates, 3 female candidates were selected as per merit. Similarly out of 6 posts (5 Gen + 1 female) reserved for OBC category, candidates at merit No. 25, 27, 29, 32, 33 & 35 were selected which includes 4 male and 2 female candidate as per their merit. Thus last candidate in English subject was Rajesh Kumar who was at merit No 35 and the petitioner stands at No S.No.50 of merit, thus 9 candidates of OBC category are above petitioner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is baseless and unfounded."
The aforesaid reply has been filed by the respondents is supported by affidavit but there is no rejoinder to the facts narrated in the above para of reply. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the candidature of every category is first required to be considered as per merit and as per Para-7 of the reply, the respondents have considered the candidature of meritorious candidates as per the rules in General category, therefore, there is no error in the selection process for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II in English subject, for the reason that respondents are under obligation to consider the case of all the candidates first in the general category as per merit and 4 thereafter to provide benefit of reservation in the respective category.
In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that recently in DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.1484/2012 (State of Raj. & Ors. Vs. Vikas Kumar Aggarwal & Ors.), it has been held by the Hon'ble Division Bench that no candidate having less than 60% marks in general category and 55% marks in OBC and other reserved category in the TET examination is entitled for appointment on the post of teacher Grade-III Level-II, therefore, obviously, the respondents are under obligation to re-cast the merit while following the aforesaid judgment, therefore, direction may be issued to the respondents to act upon for the purpose of re-casting the merit in view of the judgment rendered in case of Vikas Kumar Aggarwal (supra).
Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Mahendra Choudhary submits that against the judgment rendered in Vikas Kumar's case, SLP has been filed in which stay is operating, therefore, obviously, the directions issued in case of Vikas Kumar Aggarwal (supra) cannot be complied with. 5
In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents that after decision in the SLP by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vikas Kumar's case, the case of the petitioner will be considered in accordance with directives given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.
arun