Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Surendra Singh Rathore S/O Bhanwar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 December, 2019
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13208/2019
Surendra Singh Rathore S/o Bhanwar Singh Rathore, Aged About
26 Years, R/o Village Shobhana Post Bhadala Tehsil Nokha
District Bikaner (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Medical
And Health Services, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Service, Swasthya
Bhawan, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme,
Jaipur.
3. The Addl. Director (Admn.), Medical And Health Services,
Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5881/2019
Chetan Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Chand Sharma, Aged About 24
Years, By Cast Brahamin R/o Village - And Post Masari Tehsil
Kathumar District Alwar, (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Jaipur, Rajasthan
Through Its Secretary State Agriculture Management
Center Durgapura Jaipur Raj.
2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary To
The Government , Department Of Personnel, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6023/2019
1. Shashi Kant S/o Sh. Mahavir Prasad, Aged About 26
Years, Resident Of Vpo Mahadpura Teh. Rajakhera,
Dholpur Pincode 328029.
2. Shekhawat Vikram Devisingh S/o Sh. Devisingh, Aged
About 22 Years, Presently Resident Of 30, Balajidham
Society, Near Bad Pitlabas Govt School, Kanakpura,
Jaipur, Permanent Resident Of 47 Rajputo Ka Mohalla,
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(2 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Gol, Dist-Nagaur, Rajasthan, Pincode-341031.
3. Rupender Vijay S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Vijay, Aged About
27 Years, Resident Of Vpo-Notara Maliyan, Teh-
Digod,dist-Kota, Rajasthan, Pincode-325204.
4. Ashish Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Suresh Chand Sharma,
Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of R-17, Kanak Vrindavan,
Opp. Genesis Apartment, Sirsi Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
302034.
5. Naveen Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Gurudev Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, Present Resident Of 182/70-71, Sector
18, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer Jaipur, Permanent Resident
Of Ward No-20, 1Knn Bas Stand, Vill Fefana, Tah.- Nohar,
Dist. Hanumangarh.
6. Rahul Patel S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Patel, Aged About 22
Years, Resident Of 132 Patelo Ka Mohalla, Shyopur
Sanganer, Sector-11, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan,
Pincode-302033.
7. Surender Sharma S/o Sh. Ramanand Sharma, Aged
About 23 Years, Resident Of Vill-Paota, Post-Syaluta, Teh-
Rajgarh, Dist-Alwar, Rajasthan, 301410.
8. Naveen Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Vijay Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 20 Years, Resident Of Vpo Akbarpur, Teh-Alwar,
Dist-Alwar, Rajasthan, 301001.
9. Sohan Singh Rajpoot S/o Sh. Rewat Singh Rajpoot, Aged
About 24 Years, Resident Of Vpo Bhandarej, Teh-Dausa,
Dist-Dausa, Rajasthan, Pincode-303501
10. Kaushal Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Khushiram Sharma, Aged
About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Dalapura, Post-Atewa,
Teh-Karauli, Dist-Karauli, Rajasthan, 322243.
11. Ankur Jindal S/o Sh. Hariom Jindal, Aged About 27 Years,
Resident Of Ward No 18, Near Old Gopal Girls School,
Behind Hindaun Road, Ajiram Colony, Town-Kherli, Dist-
Alwar, Rajasthan.321606.
12. Ghanshyam Pareek S/o Sh. Shyam Kishore Pareek, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of 3604 Dinanath Street, 5 Th
Cross, Chandpole Bazar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, 302001
13. Prakash Patel S/o Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, Aged About
23 Years, Resident Of 132, Patelo Ka Mohalla, Shyopur,
Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pincode-302033.
14. Dileep Chand Agrawal S/o Sh. Mahesh Chand Agrawal,
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(3 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Aged About 26 Years, R/o Agrawal Medical Store Garhi
Sawai Ram Garhi Sawai Ram, District-Alwar, Rajasthan.
Pincode-301413.
15. Kishan Bhargav S/o Sh. Vijay Bhargav, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of A-388, Virsavarkar Nagar Rang Badi
Road, Mahveer Nagar, P.i.p. Kota, Kota. Rajasthan,
324005.
16. Tushar Pandya S/o Sh. Surya Narayana Pandya, Resident
Of Village And Post Asora, Teh-Garhi, Dist-Banswara, Dist-
Banswara, Rajasthan, Pincode-327022.
17. Arvind Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ratan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 24 Years, Resident Of Vill-Solatpura, Post-Halagna,
Teh- Chhabra, Dist-Baran, Rajasthan, Pincode-325220.
18. Ajay Singh Gour S/o Sh. Madan Singh Gour, Aged About
25 Years, Resident Of P-N-132, Prem Nagar Watika Road,
Village-Kalawala, Sanganer, Dist-Jaipur, Rajasthan.
Pincode-303903.
19. Hemraj Sharma S/o Sh. Ramavtar Sharma, Aged About
26 Years, Resident Of Vpo-Dangarthal, Teh-Newai, Tonk,
Rajasthan, Pincode-304021.
20. Rahul Lawaniya S/o Sh. Ramesh Chand Lawaniya, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Pandey Mohalla, Deeg, Dist-
Bharatpur, Rajasthan, Pincode-321203.
21. Hasmukh Kumar Dave S/o Sh. Suresh Kumar Dave, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Post Bhatoond The
Bali Dist Pali, Rajasthan, Pincode-306707.
22. Ram Prasad Sharma S/o Sh. Durga Prasad, Aged About
33 Years, Resident Of Village-Sarani Khera, Post-Khera,
Sarani, Teh-Dholpur, Dist-Dholpur, Rajasthan. Pincode-
328030
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board(Rsmssb), Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of
Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur -
302018, Rajasthan
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary ,
Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(4 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6861/2019
Bhaumesh Gautum S/o Shiv Narayan Gautum, Aged About 22
Years, Resident Of Kalya Kheri, Gopalpura, Kota-325003
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board (Rsmssb), Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of
Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-
302018 Rajasthan.
2. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9033/2019
1. Sejad Kha S/o Yusuf Kha, Aged About 25 Years,
Permanant R/o Musalmano Ka Baas Post Kishanganj,
District Sirohi, Present R/o 501, Bhavya Green, 5Th Floor,
Ramnagaria, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Rakesh Arora S/o Shri Chhotu Lal Arora, Aged About 36
Years, Permanant R/o 60, Badlo Ka Baas, Juta Baas,
Raipur Marwad, Present R/o 501, Bhavya Green, 5Th
Floor, Ramnagaria, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Dilip Singh S/o Shri Hadmat Singh, Aged About 25 Years,
Permanant R/o Rajput Vas, Serwa Post Lunol, Reodar,
Sirohi. Present R/o 501, Bhavya Green, 5Th Floor,
Ramnagaria, Jagatpura, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Madhav Bihari Bhardwaj S/o Radhey Shyam Sharma,
Aged About 37 Years, R/o Hukmikheda, Hindaun City
District Karauli (Raj.)
5. Vipin Bihari Bhardwaj S/o Madhuban Bihari Bhardwaj,
Aged About 30 Years, R/o Hukmikheda, Hindaun City
District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board (Rsmssb), Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of
Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-
302018, Raj.
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(5 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
2. Board Of Secondary Education Of Rajasthan, Through Its
Secretary Board Of Secondary Education Rajasthan,
Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12088/2019
1. Bharat Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Khateeyo Ka Mohalla,
Brahmpuri, Chauth Ka Barwara, District Sawai Madhopur
(Raj.)
2. Praveen Vijayvargiya S/o Shri Brijmohan Vijayvargiya,
Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Santosh Nagar, Bamor
Road, Tonk (Raj.)
3. Akash Pal Singh S/o Vijai Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
Permanent Resident Of Village -Kuship, Tehsil Siwana,
District Barmer Presently Residing At B-47, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Mahendra Singh S/o Mangal Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Permanent Resident Of 110, Post- Gundau, Sanchor,
District Jalore Presently Residing At B-47, Malviya Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Avdesh Kuamr Sharma S/o Mohan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 12, Railway Colony,
Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
6. Pawan Kumar Jain S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Jain, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of Lal Bazar, Bhagwatgarh,
Chauth Ka Barwara, Dist. Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12420/2019
1. Bajrang Singh S/o Makhan, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Viii Khadraya Post Bhaiseena Bhusawar Dist -
Bharatpur
2. Suman Sekhawat D/o Ranjeet Singh, Aged About 28
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(6 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Years, Residents Swami Mohalla, Chhapra Kalah,
(Shahpura) Jaipur
3. Monika Kalra D/o Shrimanoharal Kalra W/o Manoj Kumar
Khuraha, R/o Pno. 41 Kirti Sagar Block Mangyavas Dist-
Jaipur
4. Santosh Kumar Sharma S/o Mithathu Lal Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Viii Devari Post Shekhpura
Tehsil - Dikhai Dist-Dausa
5. Prahalad Chand Sharma S/o Ram Sharan Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Viii Jagmalpura Post
Chawada Teh- Jamwa Ramgarh Dist- Jaipur
6. Pawan Vijay S/o Ramesh Chand, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Patwar Ghar Ke Pass, Bus Stand Mehandwas
Teh-Tonk Dist- Tonk
7. Ramakant Vijayvaargiya S/o Ramesh Chand Vijayvargiya,
Residents Near Sitaram Ji Mandir Vijayvaargiya Ka
Mohalla Village People Post Peeplu Dist-Tonk
8. Vishnu Sharma S/o Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About
29 Years, Resident Of Ward No- 5 Tejaji Ka Mohalla
Kushalpura Bans Dist- Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary ,
Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board (Rsmssb), Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12942/2019
1. Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Dinesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Near Hans School, Aehirwasd
Bhawan, Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Radhyashyam Sharma, Aged
About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Bando Ki Dhan, Vpo
Jagatpura, Via Chomu, Samod, Tehsil Shahpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Rajender Singh Shekhawat S/o Umed Singh Shekhawat,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhani Bhojala, Vpo Rajnota,
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(7 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Yuvraj Sharma S/o Omprakash Sharma, Aged About 39
Years, R/o C/o Kumawat Medical Store, Renwal Road,
Jobner, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Sudhir Kumar Sharma S/o Dharmendra Kumar Sharma,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Aamloda, Post Dhawali,
Via Samod, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Kailash Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Main Market, Vpo Jatwara, Tehsil
Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Ajay Prakash Sharma S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 43
Years, R/o H. No. 9-C-13, Mahaveer Nagar-Iii, Anandpura,
Kota, Rajasthan.
8. Vivek Sharma S/o Giriraj Sharma, Aged About 36 Years,
R/o H. No. 6-S-30, Mahaveer Nagar Extension, Basant
Vihar, Ladpura, Kota, Rajasthan.
9. Kishan Singh S/o Govind Singh Rathore, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Ward No. 16, New Sadak, Near Bhartiya Kothi,
Churu, Rajasthan.
10. Naveen Kumar Sharma S/o Ramgopal Sharma, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Village And Post Talwas, Tehsil
Nainwa, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13030/2019
Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Chhaju Ram Sharma, Aged About
45 Years, R/o Vpo Kanwarpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education
Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(8 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13370/2019
1. Brij Lal Sharma S/o Immi Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Rampura Bas, Ward No. 9, Stattasar, Tehsil Chattargarh,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Sampat Singh S/o Karni Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Near Mataji Mandir, Village Shimla, Tehsil Sardarsahahar,
District Churu, Rajasthan.
3. Vikram Singh Upadhay S/o Kamlesh Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Village Itawa, Tehsil
Pipalda, District Kota, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical
Health And Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Family Welfare Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13411/2019
1. Pratibha Sharma D/o Girish Chandra Sharma W/o Yadav
Kumar Sharma, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Near
Kabutariya Kua, Ward No.15, Station Road, Laxmangarh,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
2. Pratibha Sharma D/o Satyanarayan Sharma W/o Rajesh
Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o New Colony, Ward No.
4, Behind Post Office, Virat Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board, State Agriculture Management Institute Premises,
Through Its Secretary, Durgapura, District Jaipur
Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary
State Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, Jaipur- 302018, Rajasthan,
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(9 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13436/2019
1. Hitesh Joshi S/o Shri Gulab Joshi, Aged About 24 Years,
Permanent Resident Mandawat Mohalla, Sagtada Tahsil
Sarada, Udaipur Presently Residing At 194/100, Sector-
19, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
2. Mayank Mehta S/o Shri Prakash Mehta, Aged About 30
Years, Permanent R/o Gayatri Parivar, Seriya, Tehsil
Salumber, District Udaipur Presently Residing At 194/100,
Sector-19, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
3. Kulbhushan Jain S/o Late Shri Pawan Kumar Jain, Aged
About 28 Years, Permanent R/o Village Loharia, Tahsil
Gadi, District Banswara Presently Residing At 194/100,
Sector-19, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur.
4. Vibhuti Agarwal D/o Amit Singhal, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Prachin Ganga Budd Ki Hat, Bharatpur, District
Bharatpur.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board (Rsmssb), Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13468/2019
1. Mohit Kumar Sharma S/o Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Vpo Khoraladkhani, Tehsil Shahpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Chiranji Lal Sharma S/o Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Vpo Khoraladkhani, Tehsil Shahpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Mohan Lal Sharma S/o Kanhaiya Lal Sharma, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Village Haripura Brahmin, Post Gathwari,
Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education
Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(10 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13577/2019
1. Rajendra Kumar Sharma S/o Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o Village Haripura Brahmnan, Post
Gathwari, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. Ram Kishan Sharma S/o Chhaju Lal Sharma, Aged About
40 Years, R/o Village Bhimpura, Post Bagawra, Vaya
Morija, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Ramkishore Sharma S/o Mohari Lal Sharma, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Vpo Bilonchi Vaya Morija, Tehsil Amer,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Abhishek Sharma S/o Pooran Mal Sharma, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Vpo Jaichandpura, Via Gathwari, Tehsil
Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Mahesh Kumar Sharma S/o Mohari Lal Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Bilonchi, Tehsil Amer, Via Morija,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Vaibhav Parashar S/o Dinesh Chandra Parashar, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Gathwari, Post Gathwari,
Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Madan Lal Sharma, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Vilalge And Post Bagwara, Via Morija,
Tehsil Amer, Dsitrict Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Vishnu Kumar Sharma S/o Pooran Mal Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Jaichandpura, Via Gathwari,
Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Pushpendra Kumar Sharma S/o Puran Mal Sharma, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Jaichandpura, Via Gathwari,
Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Gopi Ram Sharma S/o Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Dalpura, Post Kishanpura, Vaya
Jhotwara, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(11 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13847/2019
Kum. Kalpana D/o Surya Prakash, Aged About 46 Years, R/o
Ward No. 02, Near Sem School, Vpo Godawas, Tehsil
Neemkathana, District Sikar
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Women
And Child Development Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur
3. Director, Women And Child Development Department,
Directorate, Integrated Child Development Service, 2, Jan
Path, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur
4. Rajasthan Employee Selection Board, State Agriculture
Management Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur
Through Its Secretary
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14065/2019
Prasant Sharma S/o Kailash Chand Sharma, Aged About 21
Years, Village Pathroda, Post Tarondora, Tahsil-Nagar, District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board(Rsmssb), Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of
Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur
-302018, Rajasthan
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14888/2019
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(12 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
1. Girdhari Sharma S/o Suresh Kumar Sharna, Aged About
24 Years, Resident Of Mundota, Kalwar, Amber, Jaipur.
2. Rahul Sharma S/o Vishvnath Sharma, Aged About 28
Years, Permanent Resident Of Village Segwa, Senthi,
Chittorgarh, Presently Residing At Mundota, Kalwar,
Amber, Jaipur
3. Subham Upadhyay S/o Gajendra Kumar Upadhyay, Aged
About 28 Years, Permanent Resident Of 55-A, Subhash
Nagar, Bhilwara, Presently Residing At Mundota, Kalwar,
Amber, Jaipur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
Board (Rsmssb), Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its
Secretary.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary ,
Department Of Personnel, Main Building, Secretariat,
Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15088/2019
1. Deependra Singh Naruka S/o Shri Vijendra Singh, Aged
About 24 Years, Category General (Ews), R/o
Vivekananad Colony, Mahwa, Dausa, Rajasthan, Pin-
321608
2. Amrit Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Desraj Singh, Aged
About 26 Years, Category General (Ews), R/o Ward No.
13, Haweli, Devralal, Shrimadhopur, Sikar, Rajasthan, Pin-
332701
3. Shailendra Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Chouthmal Sharma,
Category General (Ews) Age, R/o Hingotiya, Dausa,
Rajasthan, Pin-303303
4. Himanshu Agrawal S/o Shri Shyam Sunder Agrawal, Aged
About 26 Years, Category General (Ews), R/o 4-E-22,
Mahaveer Nagar-Iii, Kota, Rajasthan, Pin-324005
5. Kapil Kumar S/o Suresh Chand, Aged About 24 Years,
Category General (Ews), R/o Mahamadpur, Kurgaon,
Karuli, Rajasthan, Pin-322255
6. Aashish Tiwari S/o Laxman Swaroop Tiwari, Aged About
24 Years, Category General (Ews), R/o Ward No. 7, Vpo
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(13 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Govindgarh, Tehsil Laxmangarh, Alwar, Rajasthan, Pin-
301604
7. Shakti Singh Ranawat S/o Shri Lal Singh Ranawat, Aged
About 24 Years, Category General (Ews), R/o Nahargarh,
Bhilwara, Rajasthan, Pin-311601
8. Divesh Agrawal S/o Shri Vinod Agrawal, Aged About 24
Years, Category General (Ews), R/o Shiv Ganga Water
Industries, Char Murti Chouhara, Baran, Rajasthan, Pin-
325205
9. Himanshu Tirthani S/o Shri Ramesh Tirthani, Aged About
23 Years, Category General (Ews), R/o Panipesh, E-85,
Swarankar Colony, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pin-
302016
10. Nasir Hussain S/o Sadrudeen, Aged About 24 Years,
Category General (Ews), R/o Mohalla Sherani Abad,
Nagaru, Rajasthan, Pin-341302
11. Lalit Kumar Shukla S/o Radheshyam Sharma, Aged About
24 Years, Category General (Ews), R/o 208,bada Bazar
Masalpur Kauroli , Rajasthan, Pin-322242
12. Kamal Singh Shekhawat S/o Deshraj Singh, Category
General (Ews), Ward No. 13, Haweli, Devralal,
Shrimadhopur, Sikar, Rajasthan, Pin-332701
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Joint Secretary To
The Government, Department Of Personnel, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur Raj.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary Ajmer Raj
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15131/2019
Suman Sharma D/o Shri Dwarka Prasad Sharma, Aged About 44
Years, R/o Brahmpuri Mohalla, Ward No. 5, Sarwad District
Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Women And Child Development,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(14 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
2. The Director, Women And Child Development,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman,
State Agriculture Management Institute, Durgapura,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16658/2019
Dheeraj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of Plot No.47, Chitrakoot Colony, Ram
Nagar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, School,
Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16910/2019
1. Sher Singh Rajput S/o Shri Jaipal Singh, Aged About 40
Years, R/o Mukam Post Narenda, Tehsil Kotputli, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Ram Singh Tanwar S/o Shri Kishan Singh Tanwar, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o. Plot No. 311, Lankapuri, Gurjar
Chowk, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Goverdhanpuri, Galta Gate,
Jaipur.
3. Jitendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Village Hashan, Post Jagpura, Tehsil Hassin,
Bhilwara, At Present Residing At C/o Shri Raghuvendra
Singh Rathore, G-4, Mathoshree, Kanak Vihar, Kamla
Nehru Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Sub-Ordinate And Ministerial Service Selection
Board, Through Secretary, Rajasthan State Agriculture
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(15 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Managing Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018.
3. Principal Secretary, Department Of Social Justice And
Empowerment, Ambedkar Bhawan G-3/1 Rajmahal,
Residency Area, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
4. Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Main Building,
Bhagwan Das Rd, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15379/2019
Asadnoor Khan S/o Ahmad Noor Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ashraf Manzil Near Old Power House, Talkatora, District Tonk
(Rajasthan)
.......Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary And Commissioner,
Department Of Information Technology And Communication, It
Bhawan, Yojana Bhawan Parisar, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
2. Technical Director Cum Officio Joint Secretary, Department Of
Information Technology And Communication, It Bhawan, Yojana
Bhawan Parisar, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection
Board, Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture
Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur-302018 (Raj.).
......Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17037/2019
Sunita Sharma D/o Hari Prasad Sharma W/o Govindram Sharma,
Aged About 45 Years, R/o Vpo Kurbara, Tehsil Neemkathana,
District Sikar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Women And
Child Development Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. Director, Women And Child Development Department,
Directorate, Integrated Child Development Service, 2, Jan Path,
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(16 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Employee Selection Board, State Agriculture
Management Institutional Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur, Through
Its Secretary.
.....Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Parihar for Mr. Tanveer
Ahamed, Mr. RB Sharma Ganthola,
Mr. IJ Kathuria, Dr. T.N. Sharma, Mr.
Ram Pratap Saini, Mr. Balkishan Saini,
Mr. Laxmi Kant Malpura, Mr. Shobhit
Tiwari, Mr. Vigyan Shah,
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Singhvi, Advocate General
with Mr. Darsh Pareek, Ms. Sheetal
Mirdha, AAG with Mr. Prateek Singh,
Mr. Nalin G. Narain, AGC.
Mr. Ashish Saini, Mr. Sandeep Taneja,
Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, Mr. Amit
Lubhaya, Mr. Divyank Panwar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Judgment
Reserved on 23/10/2019
Pronounced on 06/12/2019
Reportable
1. Since common questions of law involved and same decision
of the Government being under challenge, all the aforesaid writ
petitions were heard and being decided by this judgment which
shall apply on all the petitions.
2. All these writ petitions can be categorized with respect to the
posts for which claim has been set up by the respective writ
petitioners for seeking consideration for appointment under the
Economically Weaker Section (for short 'EWS') quota. However,
before doing so, certain facts, which put the writ petitioners in a
common string, are required to be noted.
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(17 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
3. The Constitution of India was amended by the Parliament in
its 69th year of the Republic of India by enactment which was
published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section-1
on 12/01/2019 known as The Constitution (One Hundred And
Third Amendment) Act, 2019, as under:-
2. In article 15 of the Constitution, after clause (5),
the following clause shall be inserted, namely:--
(6) Nothing in this article or sub-clause (g) of clause
(1) of article 19 or clause (2) of article 29 shall
prevent the State from making
(a) any special provision for the advancement of any
economically weaker sections of citizens other than
the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5); and
(b) any special provision for the advancement of any
economically weaker sections of citizens other than
the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5) in so far
as such special provisions relate to their admission to
educational institutions including private educational
institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State,
other than the minority educational institutions
referred to in clause (1) of article 30, which in the
case of reservation would be in addition to the
existing reservations and subject to a maximum of
ten per cent. of the total seats in each category.
Explanation.--For the purposes of this article and
article 16, "economically weaker sections" shall be
such as may be notified by the State from time to
time on the basis of family income and other
indicators of economic disadvantage.'.
3. In article 16 of the Constitution, after clause (5),
the following clause shall be inserted, namely:--
"(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State
from making any provision for the reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of any economically
weaker sections of citizens other than the classes
mentioned in clause (4), in addition to the existing
reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per
cent. of the posts in each category.".
4. The Government of Rajasthan issued a notification dated
13/02/2019 whereby The Rajasthan Backward Classes
(Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(18 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
of Appointments and Posts in Services under the State)
(Amendment) Act, 2019 was enacted providing as under:-
"LAW (LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING) DEPARTMENT
(GROUP P.II)
Jaipur, February 13, 2019
No. F.2(12) Vidhi/2/2019. In pursuance of
clause 93) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India,
the Governor is pleased to authorize the publication in
the Rajasthan Gazette of the following translation in
the English Language of Rajasthan Pichhada Varg
(Rajya ki Shaikshik Sansthaon Mein Seeton Aur Rajya
Ke Adheen Sevaon Mein Niyuktiyon Aur Padon ka
Aarakshan) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2019 (2019 ka
Adhiniyam Sankhyank 2) :-
(Authorised English Translation)
THE RAJASTHAN BACKWARD CLASSES
(RESERVATION OF SEATS IN EDUCATIONAL
INSTITUTIONS IN THE STATE AND OF
APPOINTMENTS AND POSTS IN SERVICES UNDER
THE STATE)
(AMENDMENT) ACT, 2019
(ACT NO. 2 OF 2019
(Received the assent of the Governor on the 13th day
of February, 2019)
An
Act
Further to amend the Rajasthan backward Classes
(Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in
the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services
under the State), Act 2017
Be it enacted by the Rajasthan State Legislature
in the Seventieth Year of the Republic of India as
follows :-
1. Short title and commencement - (1) This Act
may be called the Rajasthan Backward Classes
(Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions in
the State and of Appointments and Posts in Services
under the State) (Amendment ) Act, 2019.
2. It shall come into force at once.
"2. Amendment of section 3, Rajasthan Act No. 38 of
2017.- For the existing sub-section (1) of section 3 of
the Rajasthan Backward Classes (Reservation of
Seats in Educational Institutions in the State and of
Appointments and Posts in Services under the State)
Act, 2017 (Act No. 38 of 2017), hereinafter in this Act
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(19 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
referred to as the principal Act, the following shall be
substituted, namely:-
"(1) The reservation in respect of the annual
permitted strength for admission into such
educational institutions and courses in the State, as
may be prescribed, for the More Backward Classes
shall be five percent.".
3. Amendment of section 4, Rajasthan Act No. 38 of
2017.- For the existing sub-section (1) of section 4 of
the principal Act, the following shall be substituted,
namely :-
"(1) The reservation of appointments and posts in
the, services under the State for the More Backward
Classes shall be five percent.".
5. The Government of Rajasthan, exercising powers under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution accordingly made
amendments in the various service rules as mentioned in the
Schedule vide notification dated 19/02/2019 providing as under:-
"GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
(A-Gr. II)
No. F 7(1) DOP/A-II/2019 Jaipur,dated : 19.02.2019
NOTIFICATION
In exercise of the powers conferred by the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the
Governor of Rajasthan hereby makes the following
rules further to amend the Various service Rules as
mentioned in the Schedule appended hereto,
namely:-
1. Short title and commencement (1) These
rules may be called the Rajasthan Various service
(Amendment) Rules, 2019.
(2) They shall come into force with immediate
effect.
"2. Amendment.-(l) After the existing rule
mentioned in column number 3 against each of the
service rules as mentioned in column number 2 of the
Schedule given below, the following new rule as
mentioned in column number 4 shall be added,
namely:
"Reservation of vacancies for Economically
Weaker Sections:- Reservation of vacancies for
Economically Weaker Sections shall be 10% in direct
recruitment in addition to the existing reservation. In
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(20 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
the event of non- availability of eligible and suitable
candidate amongst Economically Weaker Sections in a
particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them
shall be filled in accordance with the normal
procedure.
Explanation: For the purpose of this rule
'Economically Weaker Sections' shall be the persons
who are bonafide resident of Rajasthan and not
covered under the existing scheme of reservations for
the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes, the
Backward Classes, the More Backward Classes and
whose family has gross annual income below rupees
8.00 lakh. Family for this purpose will include the
person who seeks benefit of reservation, his/her
parents and siblings below the age of 18 years as also
his/her spouse and children below the age of 18
years. The income shall include income from all
sources i.e. salary, agriculture, business, profession
etc. and it will be income for the financial year prior
to the year of application. Also persons whose family
owns or possesses any of the following assets shall be
excluded from being identified as, 'Economically
Weaker Sections', irrespective of the family income:-
(i) 5 acres of Agricultural Land and above;
(ii) Residential flat of 1000 sq. ft. and above;
(iii) Residential plot of 100 sq. yards and above in
notified municipalities; or
(iv) Residential plot of 200 sq. yards and above in
areas other than the notified municipalities.".
(2) In the existing rule as mentioned in the column
number 5 against each of the service rules as
mentioned in the column number 2 o f the Schedule
given below, for the existing expression "woman
candidates belonging to general category and
Economically backward classes", the expression
"woman candidates belonging to General Category,
Economically Backward Classes and Economically
Weaker Sections shall be substituted."
6. On 23/06/2019, the Department of Personnel, Government
of Rajasthan issued circular/ order to the RPSC/Staff Selection
Board whereby it directed that the MBC reservation of 5% would
be provided to all pending recruitments as on date of notification
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(21 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
but EWS category reservation would be extended to only those
pending recruitments where no examination had been held.
7. In all the present writ petitions, the writ petitioners are
assailing the said circular dated 23/06/2019 issued by the
Department of Personnel alleging it to be discriminatory, arbitrary
and unreasonable and thereby violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India towards those category of persons who claim
themselves to be from EWS category and further prayed that they
should be extended the benefit of EWS reservation in all the
pending selections/recruitments which were not completed on the
date of issuance of the notification dated 19/02/2019 and have
therefore, prayed for setting aside the circular/letter dated
23/06/2019.
8. Coming to the facts of these writ petitions, the writ petitions
are categorized as under according to the name of the posts for
which the selection process is being conducted:-
A 1. SBCWP No. 13370/2019 Brij Lal Sharma and Others Vs. State & Others
2. SBCWP No. 13415/2019 Gorav Dhadhich and anothers Vs. State & Anr.
3. SBCWP No. 13208/2019 Surendra Singh Rathore Vs. State & Others
Medical & Health Department
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Nurse Grade-II 30.5.2018 3.7.2018 No Exam Exercise Final Merit list Pending
already
B 1. SBCWP No. 13030/2019 Mahendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State and Others
Department of Education Secondary
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Head Master 28.3.2018 9.5.2018 2.3.2018 19.7.2019 Counselling
Appointment Pending
(1200)
C 1. SBCWP No. 13577/2019 Rajendra Kumar Sharma Vs. State and Others
2. SBCWP No. 13468/2019 Mohit Kumar Sharma and others Vs. State and Others
3. SBCWP No. 12088/2019 Bharat Kumar Sharma Vs. State & anothers
Department of Education Secondary
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Senior Teacher 9.4.2018 9.6.2018 31.10.2018 29.9.2019 Appointment
(Counselling)
Pending
Garade-II to
2.11.2018
D 1. SBCWP No. 16910/2019 Sher Singh Rajput Vs UOI and Others
2. SBCWP No. 9033/2019 Sejad Kha and other Vs RSMSSB & another (No Party)
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(22 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Department of Education Secondary
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Physical Training 4.5.2018 29.6.2018 30.9.2018 29.1.2019 Document Verification
Instructor Grade-
III
E 1. SBCWP No. 13436/2019 Hitesh Joshi and another Vs State & others
Department of Information and Technology
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Informatics 27.2.2018 27.4.2018 12.5.2018 22.7.2019 Appointment Made
Assistants to
5.10.2018
F 1. SBCWP No. 13411/2019 Pratibha Sharma and another Vs RSMSSB & another (No Party)
2. SBCWP No. 17037/2019, Sunita Sharma Vs. State and others.
3. SBCWP No. 13847/2019, Kum. Kalpana Vs. State and others.
Women & Child Development - Staff Selection Board
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Anganbadi 1.10.2018 3.11.2018 3.3.2019 22.7.2019 Document Verification
Worker Female
(309)
G 1. SBCWP No. 14888/2019 Girdhari Sharma and others Vs RSMSSB & another
Department of Commercial Taxes
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Tax Assistants 14.3.2018 18.5.2018 14.10.2018 25.2.2019 Appointment Pending
H 1. SBCWP No. 13210/2019 Ashish Kumar Sharma and others Vs JVVNL & another
Department of Energy- JVVNL
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Helper II 7.9.2018 21.9.2018 26.12.2018 - Document Verification
to 3.2.2019
I 1. SBCWP No. 15088/2019 Deependra Singh Naruka and others Vs JVVNL & another
Department of Personnel - Common Exam
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
A. En. (Civil 5.4.2018 29.5.2018 16.12.2018 18.7.2019 Document Verification
Engineer) to
18.12.2018
J 1. SBCWP No. 5881/2019 Chetan Sharma Vs RSSB & ohters
2. SBCWP No. 6023/2019 Shashi Kant and another Vs RSMSSB & another
3. SBCWP No. 6861/2019 Bhaumesh Gautam Vs RSMSSB & another
4. SBCWP No. 14065/2019 Prasant Sharma Vs RSMSSB & another
Department of Personnel - Common Exam
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Clerk Grade-II 16.4.2018 8.6.2018 12.8.2018 7.3.2019 Document Verification
Junior Assistant to
16.9.2018
K 1. SBCWP No. 12553/2019 Devendra Singh Vs. State
Department of Animal Husbandry
Name of Exam Date of Last Date Exam Date Result Status
Advt.
Live Stock 14.3.2018 21.10.2018 29.1.2019 Result
Assistant directed to
bew
revised
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(23 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
vide order
dated
28/9/2019
followed
13/9/2019
9. Mr. Shobhit Tiwari, learned counsel for the respective writ
petitioners submitted that a discrimination perse could not have
adopted between the grant of benefit of 5% reservation to MBC
candidates in the existing selection process and grant of 10%
reservation to EWS category of candidates. He submitted that the
order dated 23/06/2019 has been passed which seeks to deny the
benefit already granted to the EWS candidates vide notification
dated 19/02/2019 for the selection process which is underway. He
submitted that the notification dated 19/02/2019 had come into
force with immediate effect and there was no power available with
the State Government to withhold the benefit provided under the
notification to the EWS candidates while allowing MBC reservation
for the post of PTI Grade-III under the advertisement issued for
PTI Direct Recruit Examination, 2018. He submitted that no
prejudice could be caused and there can be no reason for denying
the benefit on a specious plea that the examination had already
taken place. He further submitted that 4% reservation was
provided vide another notification dated 24/01/2019 for physically
handicapped persons. The same has been applied without any
discrimination to all pending recruitments and since the
reservations i.e. for PH category, MBC reservation and EWS
reservation are vertical, parity was required to be maintained in
granting reservations. He further submitted that in SB Civil Writ
Petition No.14086/2019, decided on 09/09/2019, this Court held
the action of withholding EWS reservations in All India Ayurveda
Post Graduation Entrance Test, 2019 as unjustified and directed
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(24 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
for conducting counseling separately for 10% seats to be provided
under the EWS category. Learned counsel submitted that in PG
Medical Courses also, EWS reservation has been allowed in the
pending selection. It is submitted that the Administrator cannot
exercise discriminately the application of reservation. It is further
submitted that if EWS reservation is not provided to them, the
MBC reservation should also not apply in pending selections.
10. Mr. RP Saini, learned counsel who appeared for cases where
the post concerned is that of Nurse Grade-II, submitted that the
order/letter dated 23/06/2019 would have no application and the
reservation of EWS cannot be denied to candidates as there is no
examination conducted for selection for the post.
11. Mr. RB Sharma, counsel for the petitioners in SB Civil Writ
Petition No.5881/2019, submitted that the advertisement
specifically mentions that all amendments which may be made
relating to reservation shall apply to the advertisement. The EWS
reservation would apply in relation to the posts of general
category and there is no occasion for taking of option from any
candidate. It is submitted that the respondents cannot deny the
benefit of EWS to the candidates who have applied as in all the
advertisements which are issued by the RPSC (his case relating to
Clerk Gr. II/Junior Assistant Examination, 2018), there is a column
mentioning whether income of the candidate is less than Rs.2.5
lac. It is submitted that when MBC reservation of additional 4%
has been allowed in all the pending selections and shadow posts
have been created, the similar exercise could have been
conducted for EWS also and the Government has failed to conduct
its exercise for the purpose of extension of rights created by the
statute in favour of the existing EWS candidates.
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(25 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
12. The other lawyers appearing in the respective writ petitions,
have adopted the aforesaid arguments.
13. Per-contra, Mr. MS Singhvi, learned Advocate General
argued that there is no legal right created in favour of any
candidate as no final selections have been made. He submitted
that reservation is an exception brought about by an enabling
provision and no mandamus can be claimed for reservation. He
relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ajit Singh and
others (II) Vs. State of Punjab and others: (1999) 7 SCC 209. He
submitted that the benefit had already been issued in all the cases
and for the purpose of grant of EWS reservation, which was in
addition to the existing reservations, the State was required to
issue fresh advertisement or corrigendum as those candidates,
who may have applied, would have no information about coming
into force of the EWS reservation and would be therefore,
deprived of participation in the selection process. In support of
this submission, he relied upon the judgments rendered by the
Apex Court in T.M.A. Pai Foundation & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka
& ors.: (2002) 8 SCC 481; Chairman and Managing Director,
Central Bank of India & ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST
Employees Welfare Association & ors.: (2015) 12 SCC 308;
Mangalam Organics Limited Vs. Union of India: (2017) 7 SCC 221
and K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & anr. Vs. State of Mysore & anr. :
AIR 1967 (SC) 993. He submitted that a claim for separate
reservation of EWS can only be extended by providing it in the
terms of the advertisement. On the other hand, the reservation for
physically disabled persons as well as for MBC quota was already
provided in the advertisement relating to pending selections. The
only difference is that the same has been increased from 3% to
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(26 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
4% and 1% to 5% respectively. Thus, there is no requirement of
additional applications to be invited from open market as already
the candidates had applied under the PH category or MBC
category and in the circumstances, therefore, the order dated
23/06/2019 was issued which provided that MBC reservation
would apply to all pending selections while EWS reservation would
apply to those categories where examinations have not been
conducted, meaning thereby, a corrigendum could be issued for
inviting applications against EWS category. Learned Advocate
General relied on law in this regard which shall be dealt with later
on.
14. Learned Advocate General further submitted that where
result has already been declared or final select list has been
prepared, the implementation of reservation of EWS was wholly
impracticable and cannot be applied as fresh candidates who are
not party to these petitions would be deprived from participation
and would suffer discrimination. Secondly none of the candidates
who have already been placed in the select list have been
impleaded as party. If EWS reservation is to be applied, the result
already declared or final select list already published will have to
be revised and affect placement of such selected candidates.
Learned Advocate General has relied on judgments of the Apex
Court rendered in Prabodh Verma & ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
& ors and other connected matters: (1984) 4 SCC 251 and in
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal: (2014) 1 SCC 144 in
support of the aforesaid arguments.
15. With regard to the argument advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioners that if the benefit of EWS is not extended, the
benefit of 4% to MBC ought not be extended and the parity should
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(27 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
be maintained, is a negative erroneous argument, it is submission
of the learned Advocate Genreal that none of the MBC candidate,
who is getting the benefit under the order dated 23/06/2019 has
been impleaded as party. He relies on the judgment of the Apex
Court in Kumari Chitra Ghosh & anr. Vs. Union of India & ors.:AIR
1970 (SC) 35 to submit that the petitioners are not competent to
challenge the MBC reservation as 4% reservation, which has been
extended to MBC, would not go to the petitioners. It was his
submission that in the case of petitoner-Sher Singh Rajput, such a
prayer which has been made is wholly untenable and
unreasonable. It was also pointed out that a PIL was preferred,
however, the Division Bench refused to grant any interim order.
16. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
that there is no need to redo the entire exercise as bifurcation
amongst the candidates who had already applied could be done
with regard to EWS reservation. It was submitted that the
petitioners are not seeking reservation but are only seeking
implementation of the notification dated 19/02/2019 and
mandamus in this regard could always be claimed. It was further
submitted that the MBC reservation of 4% has affected the result
of the general candidates as 4% seats have been cut down against
the general category candidates, moreover, the technical defects
cannot come in the way for implementation of a right created
under a legislation.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioners have relied on the view
taken by this Court in Rahul Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India &
ors (SB Civil Writ Petition No.14086/2019), decided on
09/09/2019 whereby this Court having examined implementation
of the One Hundred Third amendment made in the Constitution,
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(28 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
directed the Union of India to act according to the directions and
decision taken by the Union of India to provide reservation
immediately in present Session 2019-20.
18. I have thoughtfully reflected on the aforesaid arguments
noted above. Following aspects in the writ petitions are required to
be noticed:-
(a) For recruitment to the post of Nurse Grade-II, the
exercise has already been conducted.
(b) For recruitment to the post of Head Master,
exercise has already been conducted.
(c) For recruitment to the post of Senior Teacher Gr.-
II, the exercise has already been conducted.
(d) For recruitment to the post of PTI Grade-III, the
exercise has already been conducted
(e) For recruitment to the post of Informatics
Assistants, the exercise has already been conducted.
(f) For recruitment to the post of Anganbadi Worker
Female, the exercise has already been conducted.
(g) For recruitment to the post of Tax Assistants, the
exercise has already been conducted.
(h) For recruitment to the post of Helper-II, the
exercise has already been conducted.
(i) For recruitment to the post of A.En. (Civil
Engineer), the exercise has already been conducted.
(j) For appointment to the post of Clerk Grade-
II/Junior Assistant, the exercise has already been
conducted.
(k) For appointment to the post of Live Stock
Assistant, the exercise has already been conducted.
(l) In cases relating to Lecturers, the respondents
have stated that they have added EWS reservation and
are issuing a corrigendum.
(m) As regards the Live Stock Assistants, it has been
informed that since final result was already declared
and the same has been revised subsequently after
issuing of the notification order 23/06/2019, hence the
EWS reservation has not been extended.
(n) With regard to the selections for the post of Clerk
Gr.-II/Junior Assistant, an interim order was passed
whereby selections were stayed on 11/04/2019 in SB
Civil Writ Petition No.5881/2019.
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(29 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
19. It needs no reiteration that once reservation is provided by
the notification dated 19/02/2019 in the State Services and
Subordinate Services by amending all the Service Rules under
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the said
reservation becomes statutory and has to be implemented by the
State Government.
20. This court has to examine whether the State Government
while issuing letter dated 23.6.2019 has committed error while
implementing the statutory reservation of EWS which was
extended to all the State and Subordinate Services w.e.f.
19.2.2019.
21. In letter/order dated 23/06/2019 sent by the Department of
Personnel to the Secretary, RPSC and Secretary, Rajasthan Staff
Selection Board, Jaipur it was provided that so far as the MBC
reservation is concerned, since there were already applicants who
had applied for 1% reservation which was already existing, the
notification dated 13/02/2019 increasing the reservation to 5%
was directed to be implemented on the pending recruitments. It
further states that "where the examination has already been
declared, then in such pending selections, in order that no loss is
caused to any other category of candidates, 4% additional posts
for MBC shall be created and the concerned Finance Department
shall conduct exercise for creation of such additional posts and in
those recruitments, where no examination has been conducted,
reservation for 5% for MBC in terms of the notification dated
13/02/2019 and 10% reservation for EWS in terms of notification
dated 19/02/2019 shall be provided. For the said purpose, a
revised division of posts shall be carried out by the concerned
Administrative Department and sent to the recruiting agency. For
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(30 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
the said purpose, all category of candidates shall be allowed to
move fresh applications and the eligibility shall also be considered
accordingly meaning thereby those candidates who have already
applied shall be allowed to make fresh applications or their
pending applications may be considered. Those candidates who
were already eligible under the earlier applications would be
treated to be eligible under the new corrigendum also." As per
Clause (C), it has been further provided that "those candidates
who had applied earlier and have become eligible for benefit of
EWS category under the notification dated 19/02/2019, need not
apply again and such candidates who have already applied earlier
would be given opportunity to submit the EWS certificate. The
creation of the additional posts for MBC was sanctioned by the
Finance Department.
22. On careful reading of the letter dated 23/06/2019, as noticed
above, one finds that the State Government has implemented the
notification dated 13/02/2019 for all the recruitments which are
pending at any stage but so far as implementation of the EWS
category reservation is pending as per notification dated
19.2.2019 is concerned, the same has been only allowed upto the
category of recruitments where the result has not been declared
or where the process has not been completed of filling up the
forms by issuing corrigendum. The reason, which has been
pointed out by the learned Advocate General that there will be
other candidates who may not have applied for EWS category as
the same was nowhere provided in the existing advertisements. If
an examination has already been conducted, rights of candidates
stand crystallized and their result would be declared category-wise
as mentioned in the advertisement. It is, thus, apparent that the
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(31 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
State Government has duly applied its mind to the method and
manner in which implementation of reservation is to be
conducted.
23. While the Constitution may provide, as an enabling provision,
the reservation of various kind to various categories, the enabling
provision would apply only when the State provides reservation in
its recruitment Rules. Once a reservation is provided under the
Rules by notification, it becomes binding on the State government
to implement such a reservation.
24. In view of above, the submission of learned Advocate
General that a right is not available, with the petitioners for
implementation seeking of reservation is not found to be tenable.
Claiming of reservation may not be a right available to a candidate
but once the provision of reservation has been incorporated in a
given set of Rule framed under proviso to Article 309 of the
Constitution, a candidate who has to apply for direct recruitment
under the said Rules, gains a right of consideration for
appointment under the said reservation category which is provided
under the Rules. Thus, the petitioners cannot be ousted on the
ground that they do not have any substantive right as it has been
created after the notification dated 19/02/2019 issued by the
State Government by incorporating EWS reservation in all the
State and Subordinate Service Rules framed under proviso to
Article 309 of the Constitution.
25. In Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India &
ors. Vs. Central Bank of India SC/ST Employees Welfare
Association & ors. (supra), the Apex Court has held as under:-
26.......Thus, no doubt, power lies with the State to
make a provision, but, at the same time, courts
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(32 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
cannot issue any mandamus to the State to
necessarily make such a provision. It is for the State
to act, in a given situation, and to take such an
affirmative action. of course, whenever there exists
such a provision for reservation in the matters of
recruitment or the promotion, it would bestow an
enforceable right in favour of persons belonging to
SC/ST category and on failure on the part of any
authority to reserve the posts, while making
selections/promotions, the beneficiaries of these
provisions can approach the Court to get their rights
enforced. What is to be highlighted is that existence
of provision for reservation in the matter of selection
or promotion, as the case may be, is the sine qua non
for seeking mandamus as it is only when such a
provision is made by the State, a right shall accrue in
favour of SC/ST candidates and not otherwise."
26. However, on examining the petitioners' claim within the
framework of Rules, a look at the chart, as noted above, shows
that all these advertisements relating to the recruitments were
issued before the notification dated 19/02/2019.
27. Each State and Subordinate Service Rule provides, as an
omnibus rule, a rule relating to year-wise determination of
vacancies as under:-
" 9 Determination of vacancies - {1} (a) Subject
to the provision of these rules, the Appointing
Authority shall determine on 1st April every year, the
actual number of vacancies occurring during the
financial year.
(b) Where a post is to be filled in by a single method
as prescribed in the rule or, the vacancies so
determined shall be filled in by that method.
(c) Where a post is to be filled in by more than one
method as prescribed in the rules or, the
apportionment of vacancies, determined under clause
(a) above, to each such method shall be done
maintaining the prescribed proportion for the over all
number of posts already filled in. If any fraction of
vacancies is left over, after apportionment of the
vacancies in the manner prescribed above, the same
shall be apportioned to the quota of various methods
prescribed in a continuous cyclic order giving
precedence to the promotion quota.
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(33 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
(2) The Appointing Authority shall also determine the
vacancies of earlier years, yearwise which were
required to be filled in by promotion, if such vacancies
were not determined and filled earlier in the year in
which they were required to be filled in."
28. Thus, the vacancies which are determined for direct
recruitment under the Rules upto that year, are sent by the
concerned Administrative Department to the recruiting agency for
the purpose of recruitment and advertisements and in all the
cases advertisement has been issued prior to notification dated
19/02/2019.. At the time of determination of vacancy, as there
was no reservation available for EWS category, under the said
Rules, therefore, the posts, which have been advertisement under
the advertisement, cannot be said to be governed by the
notification dated 19/02/2019.
29. In other words, the determination of vacancies for EWS was
not available with the concerned department at the time of
requisition sent to the recruiting agencies. Hence, the candidates,
who have applied under the said advertisement, cannot claim
selection on the said post for EWS category.
30. The decision of the State Government in determining the
number of posts in cases where the recruitment is pending and
examination has not been held, is found to be in consonance with
the Rules as rule relating to determination of vacancies would be
adhered.
31. The contention of learned Advocate General with regard to
the fact that a fresh advertisement has to be issued, is therefore,
found to be correct and in accordance with schemes of the Rules.
32. It is noticed that in the letter/decision dated 23/06/2019, the
Department of Personnel has mentioned creation of additional 4%
posts in order to complete 5% reservation for MBC. However, the
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(34 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
State Government has not provided such creation of additional
posts for EWS.
33. The creation or abolition of posts is an exclusive domain of
the State Government and this Court cannot direct the State
Government to create additional posts for the implementation of
EWS reservation in the pending recruitments. Thus, the decision
of the State Government in not implementing EWS reservation to
the pending recruitments, where the examinations have already
been held or where the result has been declared, cannot be said
illegal or contrary to the Rules which govern the said recruitment.
34. In T.M.A. Pai Foundation & ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & ors.
(supra), Justice Ruma Pal, while partly dissenting the judgment,
has observed about the concept of equality as under:-
345. 'Equality' which has been referred to in the
Preamble is provided for in a group of Articles led by
Article 14 of the Constitution which says that the State
shall not deny to any person equality before the law or
the equal protection of the laws within the territory of
India. Although stated in absolute terms Article 14
proceeds on the premise that such equality of
treatment is required to be given to persons who are
equally circumstanced. Implicit in the concept of
equality is the concept that persons who are in fact
unequally circumstanced cannot be treated on par.
The Constitution has itself provided for such
classification in providing for special or group or class
rights. Some of these are in Part III itself [Article 26,
Article 29(1) and Article 30(1)] Other such Articles
conferring group rights or making special provision for
a particular class include Articles 336 and 337 where
special provision has been made for the Anglo-Indian
Community. Further examples are to be found in
Articles 122, 212 and other Articles giving immunity
from the ordinary process of the law to persons
holding certain offices. Again Articles 371 to 371(H)
contain special provisions for particular States.
347. The equality, therefore, under Article 14 is not
indiscriminate. Paradoxical as it may seem, the
concept of equality permits rational or discriminating
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(35 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
discrimination. Conferment of special benefits or
protection or rights to a particular group of citizens for
rational reasons is envisaged under Article 14 and is
implicit in the concept of equality. There is no
abridgment of the content of Article 14 thereby--but
an exposition and practical application of such
content."
35. Taking into consideration the aforesaid principle, if the
order/decision dated 23/06/2019 is examined on the anvil of
Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court finds that the State has
made distinction between the classes namely; those who have
been given the benefit of reservation vide order/decision dated
13/02/2019 i.e. for MBC category and those who have been
placed under the EWS category.
36. In K.V. Rajalakshmiah Setty & anr. Vs. State of Mysore & anr.
(supra), the Supreme Court was examining the demand raised by
the petitioners therein that they should all receive benefits which
the other promoted, before and after they had received and thus
should be awarded promotion as Assistant Engineers. The case of
the State of Mysore was that the benefit was awarded as a
concession to Surveyors who were posted as Officer Incharge of
the Sub-Division who had been promoted from time to time to the
cadre of Assistant Engineer. The batch was promoted on the
recommendations vide notification relating to the said Surveyors
alone. In the said situation, it was claimed by the Assistant
Engineers that they had been discriminated as the special
concession was awarded to the Surveyors ought to be given to
them, the Supreme thus held as under:-
"12. There is some force in some of the contentions
put forward on behalf of the State of Mysore. It is not
necessary to test them as we find ourselves unable to
uphold the contention of the appellants. No doubt
some concession had been shown to the first batch of
41 persons and the batches of persons who had come
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(36 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
in after the batch of 63 persons also received some
concession, but after all these were concessions and
not something which they could claim as of right. The
State of Mysore might have shown some indulgence
to this batch of 63 persons but we cannot issue a writ
of mandamus commanding it to do so. There was no
service rule which the State had transgressed nor has
the State evolved any principle to be followed in
respect of persons who were promoted to the rank of
Assistant Engineers from surveyors. The indulgences
shown to the different batches of persons were really
ad hoc and we are not in a position to say what, if
any, ad hoc indulgence should be meted out to the
appellants before us."
37. Since the provision has already been made for reservation, a
right would therefore exist in favour of the EWS candidates.
38. In The Comptroller and Auditor General of India & anr. Vs.
K.S. Jagannathan & ors: AIR 1987 (SC) 537, the Supreme Court
had taken a view that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution to issue a writ of mandamus
where the Government or public authority has failed to exercise
the discretion conferred upon it by a statute or a Rule or a policy
decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion
malafidely or on irrelevant considerations or by ignoring the
relevant considerations and materials or in such a manner as to
frustrate the object of conferring such discretion or the policy for
implementing which such discretion has been conferred. This view
of the three Judges' Bench was, however, overruled by the
Supreme Court in Ajit Singh and others (II) Vs. State of Punjab
and others (supra) holding as under:-
"32. Learned senior counsel for the reserved
candidates, Sri K. Parasaran however contended that
Article 16(4) and Article 16(4A) confer a power
coupled with a duty and that it would be permissible
to enforce such a duty by issuing a writ of
mandamus. Reliance for that purpose was placed
upon Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(37 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
Prakash v. K.S. Jagannathan MANU/SC/0066/1986 :
[1986]2SCR17 and also on Julius v. Lord Bishop
which case was followed by this Court in
Commissioner of Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji
MANU/SC/0002/1951 : [1952]1SCR135 . We are
unable to agree with the above contention. As
pointed out earlier, the Constitution Bench of this
Court in C.A. Rajendran v. Union of India
MANU/SC/0358/1967 : (1968)IILLJ407SC held that
Article 16(4) conferred a discretion and did not
create any constitutional duty or obligation. In fact,
in that case, a mandamus was sought to direct the
Government of India to provide for reservation under
Article 16(4) in certain Class I and Class II services.
The Government stated that in the context of Article
335 and in the interests of efficiency of
administration at those levels, it was of the view that
there should be no reservation. The said opinion of
the Government was accepted by this Court as
reasonable and mandamus was refused. Even in M.R.
Balaji's case, the Constitution Bench declared that
Article 16(4) conferred only a discretion. It is true
that in Jagannathan's case, the three Judge Bench
issued a mandamus, after referring to Article 142,
that the Government must add 25 marks to SC/ST
candidates who had taken the S.A.S. Examination for
promotion as Section Officers and also that, in
future, a reduced minimum marks must be provided
and announced before the examination. The Court
also observed that the Department had not passed
orders as per a general O.M. of the Government
dated 21.9.1977. But the attention of the Court was
not drawn to the judgment of the Constitution Bench
in C.A. Rajendran's case and other cases to which we
have referred earlier. Further, if the State is of the
opinion that in the interests of efficiency of
administration, reservation or relaxation in marks is
not appropriate, then it will not be permissible for the
Court to issue a mandamus to provide for reservation
or relaxation. We also note that in Superintending
Engineer, Public Health v. Kuldeep Singh
MANU/SC/0520/1997 : [1997]1SCR454 ,
Jagannathan 's case was followed and reference was
made to Article 16(4) and Article 16(4A) and 19 the
principle that where a power is coupled with a duty
as in Julius v. Lord Bishop and Commissioner of
Police v. Gordhandas Bhanji, the same could be
enforced by the Court. But we may point out that
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(38 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
even in Kuldeep Singh's case, no reference was
made to C.A. Rajendran and other cases. We,
accordingly, hold that the view in Jagannathan and
Kuldeep Singh's cases that a mandamus can be
issued either to provide for reservation or for
relaxation is not correct and runs counter to
judgments of earlier Constitution Benches and,
therefore, these two judgments cannot be said to be
laying down the correct law."
39. For upholding an argument relating to discrimination, one
has to examine the case whether the persons amongst whom
discrimination is alleged, are similarly situated and come from the
same class. The classification of candidates on the basis of their
respective categories cannot be said in any manner to be
unjustified. Merely because one particular class of persons has
been put to an additional advantage vis-a-vis another class, it
cannot be said that there has been a violation of Article 14 of the
Constitution. It is within the same class of individuals that the
right exists for claiming parity.
40. In H.P. Gupta & anr. Vs. Union of India & ors.: (2002)10 SCC
658, the Supreme Court held as under:-
"5..........There cannot be perfect equality in any
matter on an absolute scientific basis and there may
be certain inequities here and there. If the
classification is correct and serves a particular
purpose, the same is not to be Judicially interfered
with. If the argument advanced on behalf of the
Appellant is accepted, then the scheme itself will
become ineffective though it may result in giving
uniform treatment to all. Thus, the incentive scheme
will stand scrapped and such an event should be
avoided. In this view of the matter, we decline to
interfere with the order made by the Tribunal. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs."
41. In a recent judgment in Rajasthan State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Dinesh Khan: 2019(13) SCALE 609, the Supreme
Court extended the theory of classification between two categories
(Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(39 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
of dependents of deceased employees as reasonable and held as
under:-
"8. The dependents of a deceased employee who
claim compensation from the Corporation under the
Act and compassionate appointment from the
Appellant- Corporation from a separate class. It is
well-settled that though Article 14 forbids class
legislation, it does not forbid reasonable classification
for the purposes of legislation. When any impugned
rule or statutory provision is assailed on the ground
that it contravenes Article 14, its validity can be
sustained if two tests are satisfied. The first test is
that the classification on which it is founded must be
based on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things grouped together from others left
out of the group; and the second test is that the
differentia in question must have a reasonable
relation to the object sought to be achieved by the
rule or statutory provision in question."
42. This Court further finds that the decision of the authority in
applying EWS reservation in pending selections where examination
has been held is equitous and allows participation of all the
persons who may fall under EWS category. The contention of
learned counsel for the petitioners that EWS category candidates
should be identified from the existing applicants alone, would
perse be discriminatory amongst all the candidates who would
otherwise fall in EWS category but have been deprived to
participate for the said category posts. Examining on the said
basis, this Court finds that the decision taken by the State
Government dated 23/06/2019 confirms the principles ingrained in
Article 14 of the Constitution.
43. Another prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners
that if reservation has not been provided in the pending selections to the EWS category candidates where result has been declared or select list has been published and therefore, the reservation to (Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM) (40 of 41) [CW-13208/2019] MBC candidate should also not be given, is noted to be rejected. Apart from what has been stated above that both the categories form a different class, this Court agrees with the contention raised by learned Advocate General that none of the MBC category candidate is a party before us and in their absence, no order can be passed. The law relating to impleadment of necessary parties has been settled in Prabodh Verma & ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors and other connected matters (supra); Tridip Kumar Dingal & ors. Vs. State of West Bengal & ors & other connected matters: (2009) 1 SCC 768 (Para 41) and State of Rajasthan Vs. Ucchab Lal Chhanwal: (2014) 1 SCC 144 (supra).
44. In so far as the arguments relating to posts of Nurse Gr.II are concerned, where there is no examination and the selections are made on the basis of merit list, the claim of the EWS category candidates would not be made out as the posts were advertised prior to coming into force of the notification dated 19/02/2019 since the posts are determined for each year under the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Service Ruels. The claim of the EWS reservation is not found to be made out. The same argument would, however, not apply to MBC reservation as the State has provided for creation of additional 4% posts for EWS category.
45. In view of the aforesaid settled law, the classification and categorization of the candidates who fall under the MBC category and those who fall under the EWS category by the State Government while applying reservation in the pending recruitments being conducted by the recruiting agencies independently through their letter dated 23/06/2019 cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and the same is accordingly upheld. (Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM)
(41 of 41) [CW-13208/2019]
46. The claim of the EWS category candidates for reservation is also found to be without basis in view of the posts having been advertised before coming into force of the notification dated 19/02/2019.
47. Consequently, the writ petitions being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed. The interim order, if any, passed by this Court stands vacated. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.
48. Copy of this order be placed in each file.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Raghu/ (Downloaded on 12/12/2019 at 10:44:42 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)