Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dalip Kumar vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam ... on 25 November, 2021
Author: Vijay Bishnoi
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14203/2018
Dalip Kumar S/o Shri Naurang Lal, Aged About 34 Years, Village
Anupshahar Tehsil Bhadra District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidhyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its
Managing Director.
2. The Managing Director, Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam
Ltd., Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Binjaram for Mr. Rakesh Matoria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rohin Bhansali
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Order 25/11/2021 The matter comes up for consideration of the application (2/20) preferred on behalf of the respondent no.2 under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of interim order dated 18.09.2018.
With the consent of both the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following relief:-
"It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:
(i) The impugned list of candidates provisionally admitted in the Phase-ll (Ann.6) may kindly be declared highly illegal, arbitrary, (Downloaded on 25/11/2021 at 09:03:35 PM) (2 of 4) [CW-14203/2018] unjust and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner in Phase-ll typing test being meritorious candidate.
(iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Informatics Assistant, if otherwise found eligible.
(iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
The brief facts of the case are that the respondent No.2 - Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam (hereinafter to be referred as "the Nigam") advertised vacancies of Informatics Assistant and invited the applications for the eligible candidates. Pursuant to that the petitioner applied for the post of Informatics Assistant. Though, the petitioner is claiming that he applied under the category of in-service candidate of the Nigam, the respondent No.1 - Nigam is claiming that the petitioner applied under the Backward Class Category.
Be that as it may, the examinations of Informatics Assistant was to be conducted in two phases. After clearing the Phase-l Examination, a candidate was required to appear in the Phase-ll Examination. The petitioner is contending that he secured 52.5 marks in the Phase-l examination, whereas, the cut off marks declared by the respondents for in-service candidates of respondent No.1 - Nigam was 45.25 marks and, as such, he secured more marks than the cut off marks, but has wrongly been not called for appearing in Phase-ll examination.
Reply to the writ petition is filed on behalf of the respondents wherein, the claim of the petitioner has been denied. (Downloaded on 25/11/2021 at 09:03:35 PM)
(3 of 4) [CW-14203/2018] Learned counsel for the respondent - Mr. Rohin Bhansali while inviting my attention towards Clause 3 of Clause 10(B) of the advertisement has argued that to become eligible for appearing in Phase-ll Examination, the candidates were required to secure minimum passing marks in Part A and Part B both of Phase-l Examination. It is submitted that as the petitioner has failed to secure minimum passing marks in Part A Examination of Phase-l, therefore, he has not been called for appearing in the Phase-ll Examination.
Specific averments to this effect are made in the reply to the writ petition which are reproduced as under:-
"Also at Point No.10 (B) under the heading other details of the examination process it was clearly mentioned at Point no. 3 that to become eligible for consideration for appointment, candidates shall be required to secure minimum passing marks in Part-A & Part-B both or Phase-l, as the case may be, as detailed below in the written competitive exams :-
i. UR Category candidate - 30 % marks ii. SC/ST/BC/MBC/Ex-servicemen/PWD(PH) category candidates -20% marks The sum of marks obtained by candidates in the Part-A & Part-B or Phase-l, as the case may be, of the examination will be counted for determining final order of their merit.
As the petitioner had applied under the BC category and as such he required acquiring atleast 20% marks in each part of written competitive exam.
The phase-l exam for the post of Informatics Assistant the exam was conducted in two parts as detailed hereunder:-
Part-A: 60% weightage
Part-B: 40% weightage
The exam was of maximum 200 marks. Out of which Part-A of maximum 120 marks (60% weightage) and Part-B of 80 marks (40% weightage). The petitioner was a BC category (Downloaded on 25/11/2021 at 09:03:35 PM) (4 of 4) [CW-14203/2018] candidate as such he was required to acquire atleast 24 marks (20% of 120 marks) in Part-A and atleast 16 marks (20% of 80 marks) in Part-B to make him eligible for qualifying the exam. As per Annexure- R-5 of the writ petition, the cut- off marks for In-Service candidates of Nigam was 45.25 but looking to the fact that the petitioner had obtained only 22.5 marks in Part-A instead of 24 marks and 30 marks in Part-B i.e. total 52.5 marks, as such the petitioner has not acquired required minimum qualifying marks in Part-A, he has not qualified the written competitive exam and accordingly, was not rightly not been called for the Phase-ll exam."
The claim of the respondents are that the petitioner did not secure minimum passing marks in Part A of Phase-l Examination, therefore, he was not called to appear in the Phase-ll Examination.
The reply to the writ petition was filed way back on 23.7.2020 and no rejoinder to the reply has been filed and the above referred quoted part of the reply remain uncontroverted.
In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Stay petition and all other pending applications are also dismissed.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J 42-pratibha/-
(Downloaded on 25/11/2021 at 09:03:35 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)