Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Hemant Singh Choudhary And Ors vs State And Anr. (2023:Rj-Jd:27765) on 2 September, 2023
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:27765] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2774/2018
1. Hemant Singh Choudhary S/o Madaram, R/o Mahiyasar Tehsil Degana District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Ramji Lal Bhardwaj S/o Motilal, R/o Ronsi, Nadouli, Karauli, Rajasthan.
3. Karamveer Dudi S/o Nagar Singh Dudi, R/o Kulod Khurd, Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
4. Mohit Kumar Sharma S/o Vijay Shankar Sharma, R/o Khati Mohalla Tehsil Bonli, Peepalda, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
5. Yogesh Kumar Muwal S/o Govind Ram Muwal, R/o Ward No.04, Muwalo Ki Dhani, Ladpura, Sikar, Rajasthan.
6. Aniruddh Sharma S/o Khem Raj Sharma, R/o C-224, Siddharth Nagar, Gatour, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Hemant Kumar S/o Ramesh Kumar, R/o Nangali Ojha, Alwar District Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Training, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Punia Ms. Akshiti Singhvi for Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 02/09/2023
1. Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioners.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:21:17 AM)[2023:RJ-JD:27765] (2 of 3) [CW-2774/2018]
2. A perusal of Para Nos. 21 and 22 of the writ petition shows that the petitioners have raised a grievance qua action of the respondent - Commission who has considered the Degree of B.Tech to be equivalent to RSCIT.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the identical controversy came up before the Jaipur Bench of this Court and vide judgment dated 29.05.2018 rendered in the case of Gajendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4043/2018), this Court has repelled such contention of the petitioner in relation to the same recruitment process.
4. Para 34 of the judgment in the case of Gajendra Singh (supra) reads thus:
"34. From the factual matrix as obtaining in the case at hand and applying the principles deducible from the opinions referred to and relied upon by the counsel for the parties; it can safely be concluded that the candidates with B.Tech. Qualification, or candidates in possession of qualifications equivalent or higher, would be deemed to fulfill the lower qualification prescribed for the post. But that qualification has to be in the same channel. However, this rule could be subjected to exception where the prescription of a particular qualification is found to be irrelevant for discharging the functions of that post and at the same time, government is able to demonstrate that for want of said qualification, a candidate may not be suitable for the post, even if he is in possession of "better (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:21:17 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:27765] (3 of 3) [CW-2774/2018] qualification" but that "better qualification" has no relevance with the functions attached to the posts.(vide Deep Chand Tiwari And Anr.)."
5. Following the judgment dated 29.05.2018 passed in the case of Gajendra Singh (supra), the present writ petition is dismissed.
6. Stay application also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 127-Mak/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 05:21:17 AM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)