Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Pankaj Yadav S/O Shri Pappu Ram Yadav vs The State Of Rajasthan on 6 January, 2023

Author: Sudesh Bansal

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12111/2022

Pankaj Yadav S/o Shri Pappu Ram Yadav, aged about 25 Years,
R/o Dhani Gashikala, Post Puranbas, District Sikar (Raj.)
                                                                         ----Petitioner
                                         Versus
1.      The State of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
        Animal Husbandry Department Government Of Rajasthan,
        Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      Director, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of
        Rajasthan, Tonk Phatak, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3.      Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection
        Board, Jaipur Through Secretary/chairman, State
        Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura,
        Jaipur.
                                                                      ----Respondents
For Petitioner(s)               :    Mr. Govind Sharma
For Respondent(s)               :    Ms. Priyanka Pareek, AGC



             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

                                          Order

06/01/2023

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner claiming appointment to the post of Livestock Assistant (LSA) in quota of Sports pursuant to advertisement dated 11-3-2022 by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board (Board).

2. Counsel for petitioner submitted that vide advertisement dated 11-3-2022 about 1136 posts of Livestock Assistant were advertised by the Board. Being eligible for the post the petitioner, belonging to OBC category and having permanent disability in his leg, applied and participated in the (Downloaded on 08/01/2023 at 12:04:16 AM) (2 of 3) [CW-12111/2022] recruitment process with Roll No.716454. On 7-6-2022 the Board invited applications from candidates for change of their category, date of birth, gender and others. Thereafter, the result was declared on 7-7-2022 and provisional list was published and vide order dated 11-7-2022 the schedule for documents verification was fixed.

It has been submitted that during medical of disabled candidates the petitioner's disability was found to be less than 40% and was not found suitable for appointment. Counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner prayed for changing his category from OBC LD category to outstanding sports category, but the Board did not consider the request of the petitioner and deprived him from appointment. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.

3. Ms. Priyanka Pareek, AGC appeared as caveator and opposed the petition.

4. Heard counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.

5. Admittedly, pursuant to advertisement dated 11-3-2022, the petitioner applied for the post of Livestock Assistant in the category of OBC LD category and participated in the recruitment process upto the stage of documents verification. At the stage of medical for the purpose of his disability, the petitioner's disability was found less than 40% and therefore he was not considered for appointment. At this stage, the petitioner tried to change his category to outstanding sports (Downloaded on 08/01/2023 at 12:04:16 AM) (3 of 3) [CW-12111/2022] category which was not permissible after completion of the recruitment process. The Board did provide an opportunity for changing the category, but the petitioner did not opt to change his category at the relevant time. Then after completion of the recruitment process, and after failing to get appointment in the category so opt earlier, the petitioner cannot claim to change his category subsequently. The petitioner has not placed on record any proof that he did apply for changing his category when the Board provided such an opportunity.

6. In such circumstances this court is of the view that the petitioner has no right to change his category from OBC LD category to outstanding sport category after completion of the recruitment process. There is no force in the writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

7. Stay application also stands dismissed.

8. All pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J Arn/45 (Downloaded on 08/01/2023 at 12:04:16 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)