Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dr Vijay Vasandani vs State (Education Department)Anr on 9 April, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4767/2012 Dr. Vijay Vasandani Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 09th April, 2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr.Vijay Dutt Sharma, for the petitioner. By the Court:
In this writ petition, petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2011 (Annex.5) whereby his candidature for the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) was rejected by treating overage.
Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner is a disabled person, thus entitled to the benefit of relaxation in age by ten years. The maximum age for the post is 37 years, accordingly a disabled person is to be treated within age upto 47 years. The respondents, however, declared petitioner to be overage at the age of 45 years only. This is precisely for the reason that one post has not been reserved for disabled person though there is a mandate to provide reservation and Rule 38 of Rajasthan Employment of the Persons with Disability Rules, 2000 also speaks about the benefit. Accordingly, the respondents be directed to provide reservation to disable person and petitioner may be treated within age limit, as he is falling in the category of disable person having hearing impairment.
I have considered the submissions made above and perused the record.
Perusal of order dated 22.07.2011 (Annex.5) shows that petitioner has been treated as overage, as no reservation exists in favour of disabled person. This is precisely for the reason that for the post of Assistant Professor (Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation), 34th point is reserved for disabled person as per roster point. Four posts advertised does not reach to 34th point as per running roster. Reservation is provided as per the roster and for which points have been fixed to provide reservation to various categories. Reservation in favour of the disabled person is also fixed. In the aforesaid background, when only four posts have been advertised and as per previous running roster, 34th point is not achieved, reservation in favour of disable person cannot be claimed. If reservation in favour of disable person cannot be claimed, question of relaxation in age does not come in picture. In fact, if a post is reserved for disable person then eligibility for that quota is to be determined as per rule. However, if no post has been reserved for disable person then eligibility has to be determined as provided for general category candidates.
In view of discussion made above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition so as the stay application are dismissed.
(M.N. BHANDARI), J.
S/No.8 Preety, Jr.P.A. All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
Preety Asopa Jr.P.A.