Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manvendra Singh vs State Of Raj And Ors on 23 September, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
1
SBCWP No.8769/2012
Manvendra Singh vs. State & Ors.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
--------------------------------------------------------
CIVIL WRIT (CW) No. 8769 of 2012
PETITIONER:
Manvendra Singh
S/o Shri Manohar Lal Gurjar, aged about 25 yrs.,
Resident of Makan No.596, Subhash Nagar 'A', Near
Meel Chowki, Pali.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS:
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary,
Home Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General of Police, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Pali.
Date of Order : 23.9.2016
HON'BLE MR. SANDEEP MEHTA,J.
MR. MUKESH VYAS, for the petitioner.
MR. ANIL KUMAR BISSA, AGC, for the respondents.
ORDER
--------
Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record. The original record provided by Shri Anil Bissa was also perused.
By way of this writ petition, the petitioner 2 SBCWP No.8769/2012 Manvendra Singh vs. State & Ors.
Manvendra Singh has approached this Court seeking to assail the action of the respondents in rejecting his candidature for being appointed as a Constable (GD) in the recruitment process initiated vide a recruitment advertisement of the year 2008. The petitioner applied in the said recruitment process in the OBC category. His date of birth is mentioned in the application form as 01.12.1987. The criterion of selection was Written Test, Physical Efficiency Test, Physical Standards and Interview. The petitioner underwent through all these processes and was declared having secured 56.25 marks. The cut-off for the General category was declared at 54.75 marks whereas for OBC category, it was declared at 59.625 marks. The petitioner has asserted that criterion of vertical reservation was to be applied in the social reservation & consequently, OBC candidates, who secured higher than the cut-off declared for the General category, were required to be moved up to the unreserved category. Since the petitioner, secured 56.25 marks which is above the cut- off declared for the General category, he claims appointment in the said category. It is further asserted 3 SBCWP No.8769/2012 Manvendra Singh vs. State & Ors.
that the petitioner was entitled to bonus marks on three counts; (i) Sports (3 marks), (ii) Qualification of Higher Secondary Education (1 mark) and (iii) Computer Qualification (1 mark). Thus, it is claimed that the petitioner would secure 61.25 marks, if bonus marks had been allocated to him as per his certificates. However, the authorities did not allocate the above bonus marks to the petitioner despite his entitlement. Furthermore, he was not moved to the General category despite standing higher in merit and therefore, he has approached this Court claiming for a direction for being appointed as a Constable (GD) in the questioned recruitment process.
The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition wherein, it is asserted that the petitioner, could not have been moved to the General category because he was overage for that catgory. It is stated that as per the recruitment notification, a General category candidate was required to be having date of birth not beyond 01.01.1988 and a OBC category candidate was required to be having date of birth not beyond 01.01.1983. The date of birth of the petitioner was 4 SBCWP No.8769/2012 Manvendra Singh vs. State & Ors.
01.12.1987 and thus, for moving to General category, he would require age relaxation which is not permissible under the recruitment notification or the Rules. This Court is of the view that the decision of the respondents in not considering the petitioner against the General category seats is perfectly justified because he was overage being considered in the unreserved category.
The second issue which the petitioner has raised is that he should have been awarded bonus marks for sports certificate (3 marks), qualification of Sr. Secondary (1 mark), and computer efficiency (1 mark).
The respondents have taken plea in the reply that at the time of document verification, the petitioner did not provide his sports and computer efficiency certificates. That apart, the sports certificates which have been filed on record with the writ petition disclose that the petitioner represented the District Football Association, Pali in the Under-21 State Football Championship held in the years 2004-05 and 2005-06. Thus, in terms of the standing order No.1/2008 governing the questioned recruitment, the petitioner 5 SBCWP No.8769/2012 Manvendra Singh vs. State & Ors.
would be entitled to 1 bonus mark for sports proficiency. The computer certificate which has been filed alongwith the writ petition, does not satisfy the requirements of the Standing Order whereunder, the aspirant claiming benefit of bonus marks under this head should be holding either 'O' Level Certificate or a Diploma from a recognised ITI. The petitioner's certificate does not fulfill either of these two conditions. Under the Standing Order governing the recruitment or the advertisement, no bonus marks are provided for qualification of Sr. Secondary. Thus, evidently even if, weightage of 1 bonus mark for the sports certificate held by the petitioner is added to his marks then too would fail to make the cut-off for the OBC category. Other than the above circumstances, one more fact which disentitles the petitioner to the relief claimed in the writ petition is that the recruitment process was conducted in the year 2008. The petitioner, for the first time, sought details of his marks, etc. from the respondents in the year 2011. Thereafter the writ petition came to be filed in the year 2012. He has not placed on record of the writ petition, the merit list or 6 SBCWP No.8769/2012 Manvendra Singh vs. State & Ors.
the cut-off declared upon conclusion of the recruitment process. Thus, apparently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is highly belated.
As a result of the above discussion this Court is of the firm opinion that the respondents were totally justified in rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment as a Constable (GD) in the questioned recruitment process.
Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby rejected.
No order as to costs.
( SANDEEP MEHTA ),J.
tikam item No.65