Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Samarath Mal Kumhar vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 September, 2022
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12859/2018
1. Samarath Mal Kumhar S/o Nirbhay Ram Ji, Aged About
28 Years, Village Arniya, Post Dewad, Tehsil Pratapgarh,
District Pratapgarh (Raj.).
2. Ashok Kumar Darji S/o Shri Vasu Dev Darji,, Aged About
27 Years, Village And Padardi Badi, Tehsil Sagwara,
District Dungarpur (Raj.).
3. Padamji Patidar S/o Shri Rupeng Patidar, Aged About 28
Years, Village Torna, Post Asan, Tehsil Garhi, District
Banswara (Raj.).
4. Hira Lal Nai S/o Shri Babu Lal Nai,, Aged About 30 Years,
Village And Post Ninor, Tehsil Arnod, District Pratapgarh
(Raj.).
5. Gopal Krishna Rathod S/o Shri Nathji Rathod,, Aged
About 26 Years, Village And Post Bansla, Tehsil Bagidora,
District Banswara (Raj.).
6. Pawan Kumar Purbiya S/o Shri Bhagirath Purbiya,, Aged
About 31 Years, Village And Post Banoda/banora, Tehsil
Salumbar, District Udaipur (Raj.).
7. Bhavesh Kumar Rebari S/o Udaji Rebari,, Aged About 28
Years, Village Dhani Barwa, Post Ghamdi Devki, Tehsil
Sagwara, District Dungarpur (Raj.).
8. Rajaram S/o Shri Jeeva Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Rebarivas- Mawal, Tehsil Abu Road, District Sirohi (Raj.).
9. Anurag Patel S/o Shri Himmat Lal Patel,, Aged About 26
Years, Village And Post Surwaniya, Tehsil, Banswara,
District Banswara (Raj.).
10. Nathu Lal Patel S/o Shri Kachra Patel,, Aged About 26
Years, Village Kheruaa, Post Intali, Tehsil Semari, District
Udaipur (Raj.).
11. Mahendra Singh Rao S/o Ratan Singh Rao,, Aged About
24 Years, Village Bhatoli, Post Pindawal, Tehsil Sabla,
District Dungarpur (Raj.).
12. Paresh Patel S/o Shri Bacchu Lal Patel,, Aged About 28
Years, Village And Post Bhandra, Tehsil Kherwara, District
Udaipur (Raj).
13. Shankar Lal Patel S/o Pemji Patel, Aged About 33 Years,
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM)
(2 of 16)
Village And Post Bana Khurd, Tehsil Sarada, District
Udaipur (Raj.).
14. Jitendra Soni S/o Satya Narayan Soni,, Aged About 36
Years, House No. 100, Sita Kunj, Commercial Colony,
District Banswara (Raj.).
15. Mahendra Kumar Nai S/o Shri Shanti Lal Nai, Aged About
28 Years, Village And Post Sakhthali, Tehsil Arnod, Distt.
Pratapgarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12771/2018
1. Naresh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Gautam Ji Patel, Aged About
26 Years, Village And Post Veerpura, Tehsil Sarda, Distt.
Udaipur (Raj.).
2. Dixit Patidar S/o Ranchhod Patidar,, Aged About 27
Years, Village And Post Surwaniya, Tehsil Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
3. Mahipal Sharma S/o Shri Natvar Lal Sharma,, Aged About
28 Years, Village And Post Surwaniya, Tehsil Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
4. Dilip Masani S/o Shri Valeng Mansanz,, Aged About 30
Years, Masani Mohalla Ganesh Chowk, Chheench,
Education, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
5. Mahendra Kumar Nai S/o Shri Shanti Lal Nai,, Aged About
28 Years, Village And Post Sakhthali, Tehsil Arnod, Distt.
Pratapgarh (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM)
(3 of 16)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12778/2018
1. Naresh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Gautam Ji Patel, Aged About
26 Years, Village And Post Veerpura, Tehsil Sarda, Distt.
Udaipur (Raj.).
2. Dixit Patidar S/o Ranchhod Patidar,, Aged About 27
Years, Village And Post Surwaniya, Tehsil Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
3. Dilip Masani S/o Shri Valeng Mansanz,, Aged About 30
Years, Masani Mohalla Ganesh Chowk, Chheench,
Education, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
4. Manisha Patel D/o Shri Ram Lal Patel W/o Shri Chandu Lal
Patel,, Aged About 26 Years, Village And Post Sulai, Tehsil
Kherwara, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.).
5. Mukesh Teli S/o Shri Heera Lal Ji,, Aged About 29 Years,
Village Araniya, Post Dewad, Tehsil Pratapgarh, Distt.
Pratapgarh (Raj.).
6. Mahipal Sharma S/o Shri Natvar Lal Sharma,, Aged About
28 Years, Village And Post Surwaniya, Tehsil Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
7. Padamji Patidar S/o Shri Rupeng Patidar,, Aged About 28
Years, Village Torna, Post Asan, Tehsil Garhi, Distt.
Banswara (Raj.).
8. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Ratan Lal,, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Palsiya, Post And Tehsil Khrwara, Distt. Udaipur
(Raj.).
9. Deepak Bharti S/o Shri Prahlaad Bharti,, Aged About 30
Years, Village Nandor, Tehsil Sagawara, Distt. Dungarpur
(Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Panchayati Raj Deparmtent, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12858/2018
1. Mahesh Chandra Patidar S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra
Patidar, Aged About 26 Years, Village And Post Jhadas,
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM)
(4 of 16)
Tehsil Gahri, Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
2. Dinesh Chand Suthar S/o Shri Kamla Shankar Ji, Aged
About 25 Years, Village And Post Gogla, Tehsil Jhadol
(P.h.), Distt. Udaipur (Raj.)
3. Ishwar Lal Rebari S/o Hajari Lal Rebari, Aged About 24
Years, Village And Post Ramgarh, Tehsil Aspur, Distt.
Dungarpur (Raj.)
4. Nilesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mani Lal Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, Village And Post Madalda, Tehsil Garhi,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12860/2018
1. Mahipal Sharma S/o Shri Natvar Lal Sharma, Aged About
28 Years, Village And Post Surwaniya, Tehsil Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
2. Gopal Kumar Darji S/o Shri Dinesh Kumar Darji,, Aged
About 26 Years, Village And Post Tokar, Tehsil Semari,
Distt. Udaipur (Raj.).
3. Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Ratan Lal,, Aged About 28 Years,
Village Palsiya, Tehsil And Post Khrwara, Distt. Udaipur
(Raj.).
4. Dilip Masani S/o Shri Valeng Mansani,, Aged About 30
Years, Masani Mohalla Ganesh Chowk, Chheench,
Education, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
5. Dixit Patidar S/o Ranchhod Patidar,, Aged About 27
Years, Village And Psot Surwaniya, Tehsil Banswara,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
6. Naresh Kumar Patel S/o Shri Gautam Ji Patel,, Aged
About 26 Years, Village And Post Veerpura, Tehsil Sarda,
Distt. Udaipur (Raj.).
7. Manisha Patel D/o Ram Lal Patel, W/o Chandu Lal Patel,,
Aged About 26 Years, Village And Post Sulai, Tehsil
Kherwara, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM)
(5 of 16)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14244/2018
1. Samana Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Laxminarayan Kumawat,
Aged About 27 Years, Village And Post Achnara, Tehsil
Arnod, Distt. Pratapgarh (Raj.).
2. Bheru Lal Nayak S/o Shri Shanti Lal Nayak Ji, Aged About
30 Years, Village Mungana, Post Mungana, Tehsil
Dhariyawad, Distt. Pratapgarh, (Raj.)
3. Bhagawati Lal Nayak S/o Shri Mani Lal Nayak, Aged
About 26 Years, Village Mungana, Post Mungana, Tehsil
Dhariyawad, Distt. Pratapgarh (Raj.)
4. Gopal Patidar S/o Shri Kanti Lal Patidar, Aged About 31
Years, Village/post Chikhli, Tehsil Chikhli, Distt.
Dungarpur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.)
2. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 585/2019
Vikas Bhoi S/o Shri Shanker Lal Bhoi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Upla Bhoiwara, Tehsil And District Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur
(Raj.).
2. The Director Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM)
(6 of 16)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah through V.C.
Dr. Nikhil Dungawat.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with
Mr. Dhairyaditya Rathore.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 20/09/2022 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners, who belong to OBC category of Tribal Sub Plan ('TSP') Area seeking to question the validity of Clause 9.4 of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 for the recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-1 & Level-2 in different subjects, whereby they have not been accorded relaxation in minimum qualifying marks required for appointment on the said post.
It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petitions that the subject recruitment is governed by provisions of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ('the Act of 1994') and Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ('the Rules of 1996'). The qualifications for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level 1 & 2, have been indicated in Rule 266 of the Rules of 1996, which, inter alia, provides the qualification as laid down by the National Council for Teacher Education ('NCTE') under the provisions of Section 23(1) of the Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ('the Act of 2009') from time to time.
It is indicated that NCTE has prescribed minimum qualifications for a person to be eligible for appointment as a Teacher vide notification dated 23.08.2010, which came to be amended by notification dated 29.07.2011. It is claimed that the (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (7 of 16) notification dated 29.07.2021 provides relaxation upto 5% in the qualification marks to the candidates belonging to reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.
It is then submitted that even in Pre Teachers Education Test ('PTET'), 5% relaxation is granted in the minimum eligibility marks in the basic academic qualification to the reserved category candidates.
Submissions have been made that the respondents while issuing the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 though made reference to the notification dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011, while indicating the minimum educational and professional qualifications, while providing for relaxation, the same has been confined to SC/ST/PH category.
It is submitted that as Clause 11.2(iii) of the advertisement indicated that there is no reservation for OBC category candidates in TSP Area, the petitioners had to apply as TSP General category candidates.
It is indicated that the State Government vide notification dated 04.07.2016, issued under Article 244(1) of the Constitution of India provided that 45% vacancies in TSP Area shall be filled with candidates belonging to ST category and 5% vacancies filled from SC category candidates. The rest 50% of the vacancies would be filled up by candidates of TSP Area belonging to any category.
It is submitted that the petitioners, who are OBC category candidates, who are residents of TSP Area, are otherwise eligible in terms of the advertisement, for lack of relaxation in terms of (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (8 of 16) the NCTE notification, are being deprived of the eligibility, which is not justified.
Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that the NCTE notification dated 29.07.2011 has allowed 5% relaxation in the eligibility marks i.e. the qualifying marks for SC/ST/OBC/PH category candidates and as the said notification is binding on the State Government, it cannot deny relaxation in the eligibility criteria to the petitioners on the pretext that though they belong to TSP Area, as there is no reservation for OBC category, they are not entitled for the same. It is emphasized that once the petitioners fall within the category of OBC, they are entitled for the relaxation as provided by NCTE notification dated 29.07.2011.
Learned counsel further emphasized that Scheduled Area is a Class in itself and, therefore, 100% reservation is granted to local residence, wherein other than 50% vacancies, which are reserved for SC and ST of the Scheduled Area, 50% vacancies are reserved for local residents only and, therefore, OBC category candidates have to be considered within the 50% reservation and they don't require separate reservation for seeking relaxation for appointments.
Learned counsel, vehemently submitted that the plea sought to be raised by the respondents regarding the petitioners being ineligible for migration to General category for lack of eligibility, is baseless, in view of judgment in Vikas Sankhala & Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.: (2017) 1 SCC 350.
Further reliance has been placed on State of U.P. & Ors. v. Shiv Kumar Pathak & Ors.: (2018) 12 SCC 595; Ram Sharan Maurya & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.: 2020 SCC Online SC 939 (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (9 of 16) and National Federation of the Blind & Anr. V. State of Raj. & Ors.: DBCW No.4907/2019, decided on 22.07.2019.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the petitioners in all the writ petitions have obtained less than 50% marks in graduation and were thus ineligible on account of Clause 9.3 of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018. It is emphasized that the petitioners, who are OBC category candidates cannot compete against unreserved posts of TSP Area at the strength of relaxation in regard to eligibility of having minimum 50% marks in graduation, inasmuch as, no posts have been reserved for OBC category in TSP Area, which aspect has been clearly indicated in the advertisement. Reference has been made to Clauses 4(iv), 11.1(ix), 11.2(iii) and 11.2(x), of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018. It was emphasized that as there is no reservation provided for OBC category, the petitioners are not entitled to any sort of relaxation and as such the petitioners ought to have the eligibility without relaxation.
Learned counsel laid emphasis that the plea raised about the candidates of OBC category being entitled to relaxation in the Non-TSP Area and being deprived of relaxation in TSP Area, is misconceived, inasmuch as, as the reservation for OBC category has been provided in the Non-TSP Area, on that count alone, they are not entitled to relaxation. It was submitted that even in the Non-TSP Area, the petitioners are not entitled to be considered/migrated against the unreserved posts.
Learned counsel also attempted to make submissions that only Clause 9.4 has been questioned and various other Clauses as (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (10 of 16) noticed hereinbefore, which specifically deny availability of relaxation to OBC category candidates in TSP Area for competing against unreserved posts, have not been challenged. The petitioners are not entitled to seek any relief in regard to the notification dated 27.09.2011. It was submitted that the relaxation granted therein doesn't override the structure of reservation in TSP Area and cannot override the reservation policy of the State, which is in consonance with the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is prayed that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners may be dismissed.
Reliance has been placed on Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Raj. & Ors.: (2018) 11 SCC 352 and Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Ors.: (2017) 12 SCC 680.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The advertisement dated 31.07.2018 (Annex.-5 in SBCW No. 12859/2018), has been issued by the State under the Act of 1994, the Rules of 1996 and the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 ('the Rules of 2014'), for TSP Area. The advertisement, at the outset in Clause 4 of the advertisement, indicated that as no posts for OBC/MBC category have been reserved in TSP Area, the candidates belonging to the said category, would not be entitled for relaxation in the upper age limit/educational qualification and they can only apply as General category candidates.
The requisite qualifications in terms of the notification dated 23.08.2010 and 29.07.2011 were indicated, inter alia, requiring at (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (11 of 16) least 50% marks at the graduation level. Under Clause 9.4, it was inter alia indicated that 5% relaxation would be available to candidates belonging to SC/ST/PH category candidates in the educational qualifications. In Clause 11.2 relating to reservation, it was reiterated that as in TSP Area of the State, no posts are reserved for OBC and MBC and, therefore, the candidates can only apply as General category candidates. The recruitment was based on marks obtained by the candidates at REET/RTET and at graduation, based on which, merit was to be prepared.
The petitioners, who belong to the OBC category, in terms of the advertisement and the stipulations made therein, filed online applications with indication of their category as 'General', whereafter, the present petitions have been filed seeking to question the non-grant of relaxation to the petitioners in terms of the notification issued by NCTE dated 29.07.2011.
The relevant Clause of the notification dated 27.09.2011, inter alia, reads as under:-
"(ii) Reservation Policy:
Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, such as SC/ST/OBC/PH."
A perusal of the above stipulation would reveal that relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks have been directed to be allowed to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, such as SC/ST/OBC/PH.
It would be relevant at this stage to notice that the Rules of 2014, which deals with the recruitment and other service conditions for the Scheduled Area, under Rule 8 provides for reservation of vacancies for SC/ST, Rule 9 provides for reservation (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (12 of 16) of vacancies for Women, Rule 10 provides for reservation of vacancies for Outstanding Sportspersons and Rule 11 provides for reservation of vacancies for Ex-serviceman. The Rules don't envisage any reservation for candidates belonging to OBC category.
Further, the notification dated 04.07.2016 (Annex.-14) issued by the State under Article 244(1) of the Constitution of India, inter alia, provides as under:-
"fofufnZ"V vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa] jkT; lsokvksa dks NksM+dj vU; lHkh jktdh; lsokvks ds inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk Hkjh tkus okyh fjfDr;ka dh 45 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ,oa 5 izfr'kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Hkjh tk;saxhA vuqlwfpr {ks= dh "ks'k 50 izfr'kr fjfDr;ksa ij fdlh tkfr ;k oxZ ds vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vH;FkhZ dk ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij ohj;rk Øe esa fu;ekuqlkj p;u fd;k tk;sxk] pkgs og vuqlwfpr tkfr ;k vuqlwfpr tutkfr ;k vU; fdlh oxZ ls lacaf/kr gksA"
A perusal of the above stipulation in the notification dated 04.07.2016 reveals that 45% vacancies have been reserved for Scheduled Tribes of Scheduled Area, 5% for Scheduled Castes of Scheduled Area and for the rest 50% of the vacancies of the Scheduled Area, it has been provided that candidates belonging to any caste or class of Scheduled Area based on merit, would be selected even if they belong to ST or SC or any other class. As such, apparently while the entire vacancies for the Scheduled Area, have been confined to candidates belonging to Scheduled Areas, the reservation therein has been provided only to candidates belonging to ST and SC categories and rest of the reservations under the Rules of 2014 are horizontal reservations.
The language of the notification dated 29.07.2011 quoted hereinbefore providing for reservation policy and relaxation therein to the extent of 5% is very specific, wherein the relaxation (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (13 of 16) in the qualifying marks has been allowed to the candidates belonging to reserved categories, which have been illustrated by indicating SC/ST/OBC/PH.
The emphasis in the notification, which applies to recruitments throughout the country, essentially is not with regard to providing the relaxation to the four categories indicated therein, in fact the emphasis is on providing relaxation to candidates belonging to the 'reserved categories' i.e. wherever under the applicable Service Rules, reservation has been provided for the recruitment of Teachers, only those who have been provided reservation in the recruitment, they would be entitled to relaxation in the qualifying marks. By the said notification, the relaxation de hors the reserved category has not been conferred on the said four categories i.e. SC/ST/OBC/PH. For seeking relaxation under the notification the candidate has to fall in the 'reserved category'.
The above aspect came up for consideration before Division Bench in Bharti Upadhayay v. State of Raj. & Ors.: DBSAW No.1122/2017, decided on 10.08.2018, wherein it was laid down as under:-
"For proper adjudication of the case, we need to refer to the Notification dated 29.07.2011 with respect to the reservation policy. The same reads as under:-
"(ii) Reservation Policy :
Relaxation up to 5% in the qualifying marks shall be allowed to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories such as SC/ST/OBC/PH."
A perusal of the above shows that 5% relaxation is granted to the reserved categories. The language of the provisions for relaxation as reproduced above provides relaxation to the candidates belonging to the reserved categories such as S.C/S.T./O.B.C./P.H. The words 'such as' indicate that what follows thereafter are only illustrative and not exhaustive, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another etc. reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 666. Thus, the (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (14 of 16) categories S.C./S.T./ O.B.C./P.H. are illustrative and mentioned for 'example' only. Whereas, relaxation requires to be given to the candidates "belonging to the reserved categories" and 'widow category' is a reserved category. The reservation policy as per the Notification dated 29.07.2011 allows relaxation upto 5% in the qualifying marks to the reserved categories. Admittedly, the widow category is also a reserved category and therefore, cannot be left out of such categories."
(emphasis supplied) In that view of the matter, apparently as the notification is confined to 'reserved categories', for seeking the relaxation under the notification, there has to be a reservation for the category seeking relaxation else they would not be entitled to any relaxation on the strength of their belonging to a category, which otherwise enjoys reservations under other recruitments.
Though plea has been raised that the action of the respondents is creating an anomalous situation, wherein the same candidate is entitled to get relaxation in Non-TSP Area and is being deprived of the relaxation in the TSP Area, the plea is unsustainable. The reason is obvious, inasmuch as, in Non-TSP Area, reservation is provided to OBC category candidates and, therefore, once the reservation is provided, in terms of the notification dated 29.07.2011, which provides for relaxation to 'reserved categories', the candidates belonging to OBC, are also entitled to relaxation.
The emphasis laid on the fact that as the petitioners have been granted relaxation while acquiring B.Ed. and if they are not granted relaxation in the extent recruitment, their qualification would be rendered redundant, cannot by itself be a reason to claim relaxation, inasmuch as, the very fact that a minimum eligibility condition has been indicated for recruitment, merely because on account of such condition, the candidates, who have (Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) (15 of 16) acquired qualification based on relaxed norms are rendered ineligible, cannot be a reason to seek relaxation, inasmuch as, the recruitment norms are not dependent on the norms meant for acquiring qualification.
The submission made that as the Scheduled Area is a Class in itself and 100% vacancies are to be filled up by candidates belonging to Scheduled Area, it should be deemed that the candidates belonging to OBC category being a part of 50% vacancies meant for residents of Schedules Area, the same by itself is a reservation, cannot be countenanced. Besides the fact, confining the 50% vacancies for candidates belonging to Scheduled Area can't by itself be termed as reservation, if benefit of relaxation was to be provided in terms of notification dated 29.07.2011 by treating the same as reservation, all the residents of the area would be entitled to such relaxation.
The submissions made on part of the respondents based on the law that those belonging to reserved category, based on relaxation, can't seek migration to the General category, apparently would have no application to the present circumstances, inasmuch as, when admittedly, no reservation is available for candidates belonging to OBC category, consequently, as they are not part of reserved category and, therefore, not entitled to relaxation, there doesn't arise any question of their migrating to General category.
In view of the above, the judgment in the case of Vikas Sankhala (supra), which has been cited on the aspect of migration, would have no application.
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM)
(16 of 16) Attempt has been on part of the petitioners, to claim that 50% vacancies, which are to be filled up by candidates of the Scheduled Area cannot be termed as meant for 'General category' essentially to get out of the submissions made on part of the respondents regarding bar in migration for those having enjoyed the relaxation, which plea also apparently has no basis, inasmuch as, the General category essentially means, which is open to all, irrespective of the caste/class and only on account of the fact that in the present recruitment, the same has been confined to candidates belonging to Scheduled Area, cannot change the character of the said posts from General category to Reserved category.
Qua the binding nature of the notification of 2011, for which, reliance has been placed on judgment in the case of Ram Sharan Maurya (supra), there is no dispute on the said aspect. The judgments in the case of Shiv Kumar Pathak (supra) and National Federation of the Blind (supra) in the circumstances of the case, have no application to the facts of the present cases.
In view of the above discussion, as the notification dated 29.07.2011, is confined to reserved categories and, there is no reservation provided to candidates belonging to OBC category in the present recruitment, the said notification, has no application in the case of the petitioners and they have rightly been denied relaxation in the qualification.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions, the same are, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J PKS/-
(Downloaded on 21/09/2022 at 12:32:04 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)