Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jetha Ram Inaniya & Ors vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 14 May, 2018
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10748 / 2017
1. Jetha Ram Inaniya S/o Shri Ram Chander Inaniya, Aged About
50 Years, R/o 5-H-28 Kudi Bhagtasni Housing Board Basni I Phase,
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Vidhya Dhar, R/o VPO- Dabri Baloda,
Tehsil- Nawalgarh, District- Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
3. Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Dharm Singh, R/o Village- Basai Bhopal
Singh, Post-majra, Tehsil - Neemrana, District- Alwar, Rajasthan.
4. Shive Lal S/o Shri Mool Chand Kumhar, R/o Ward No 1 Near
Sophiya Public School, Balla Boda Rath Nagar, Alwar, District-
Alwar, Rajasthan.
5. Sandeep Singh S/o Shri Shiv Dayal Singh, R/o VPO- Harsauli,
Tehsil- Kat Kasim, District- Alwar, Rajasthan.
6. Kaptan Singh Jat S/o Shri Goda Ram Jat, R/o Village- Nangadi
Was, Post- Nangal Panditpura, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Secretariat, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director, Department of Secondary Education, Bikaner,
Rajasthan.
3. The Secretary, The Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Premises of State Agriculture
Management Institute, Durga Pura, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Mishra
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Order 14/05/2018
1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following (2 of 4) [CW-10748/2017] reliefs:
"A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the selection process for the post of Lab Assistant in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22.09.2016 (Annex.1) and amended/revised notification dated 19.10.2016 (Annex.2) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to publish the result of Lab Assistant for Ex-servicemen alongwith cut off marks of the category (Horizontal Reservation).
C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to relax criteria of 40% minimum passing marks for the Ex- servicemen category as relaxed for the Gen (Gen), SC & ST, OBC (Gen & Fem) in Non TSP area and Gen, SC and ST in TSP area and Horizontal Reservation DE (Gen/OBC) and DE (SC/ST), LD/CP (Gen/OBC) and LD/CP (SC/ST), HE (SC/ST) to provide benefit and execute the 12.5% reservation of the Ex-Servicemen category.
D. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the petitioners for the appointment for the post of Lab Assistant.
E. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioners in the selection process for the petitioners in the selection process for the post of Lab Assistant in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.09.2016.
F. By an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Lab Assistant after providing the relaxation by lowering the cut off from 40% minimum passing marks as provided to other categories in the same exam with all consequential benefits.
G. 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 petitioners. H. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the condition of relaxation as prescribed in the advertisement dated 22.09.2016 for the recruitment on the post of Lab Assistant has not been given effect to.
(3 of 4) [CW-10748/2017]
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has stated that the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1988'), required the respondents to give 12.5% reservation but such reservation has been virtually negated because of the qualifying marks prescribed by the respondents which is 40% as mentioned in the advertisement. The condition reads as follows:
"2- ijh{kk esa U;wure mRrh.kkZd 40 izfr'kr fu/kkZfjr gSA blls de vad izkIr djus okys vH;FkhZ fu;qfDr ds fy, ik= ugha gksaxsA"
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that the petitioners were not given any relaxation in Ex-servicemen Category.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents however, states that the relaxation for the Ex-servicemen is not provided in the Rules, which governed the recruitment in question.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has further shown that for every vertical category wherever there was an entitlement for relaxation, the same has been provided to concerned category of candidates even if they were Ex-servicemen candidates.
7. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that a uniform relaxation has been given to General/SC/ST/OBC category candidates as per the conditions of the advertisement, and the persons availing the horizontal reservation, have been given specific benefit in accordance with their vertical category.
8. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that (4 of 4) [CW-10748/2017] the petitioners, seeking recruitment on the post of Lab Assistant in pursuance of advertisement dated 22.09.2016, are Ex- servicemen, and they are claiming such relaxation across the Board in their horizontal reservation for the minimum percentage in view of the conditions stipulated in the advertisement itself.
9. This Court also finds that the Rules of 1988 do not provide for any specific relaxation to be given to the Ex- servicemen. This Court also takes note of the fact that the Ex- servicemen have been given relaxation in accordance with their vertical category in which, they have participated in the recruitment in question.
10. In view of the above, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J. /zeeshan/