Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Hemlata Sharma And Anr vs State (Home Department)Ors on 20 November, 2012
Author: M.N. Bhandari
Bench: M.N. Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH [1] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14249/2011 Hemlata Sharma & Anr. Versus State & Ors. [2] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9402/2011 Meenu Kumari & Anr. Versus State & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 20/11/2012 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI Mr. S.K. Singodiya ] for petitioners
Mr. K.K. Chhawal ] Mr. B.S. Rajawat, Dy. Govt. Counsel *** Application for early listing is allowed.
With the consent of parties, both the writ petitions are heard finally.
Counsel for petitioners submits that pursuant to the advertisement dated 14.10.2010, petitioners applied for the post of Constable (Band). After physical and proficiency test, the respondents failed to give appointment to any female candidates though reservation is provided for them to the extent of 30%. The respondents may accordingly be directed to give appointment to the female candidates to the extent of reservation. As all the posts meant for female candidates have been filled by other category candidates.
Learned Counsel further submits that petitioners secured required marks in the physical test so as the proficiency test. Their aggregate marks are more than 40% to qualify the selection, thus, denial of appointment to the petitioners becomes illegal.
Learned Counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that petitioners failed to secure the required marks in the proficiency test as one was required to secure 40% marks, if falling in general category/OBC and 36 marks if one is falling in the category of SC/ST. 30% marks are required for tribals of sub plan area. The petitioners did not secure required marks in the proficiency test, thus, declared failed in the selection.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for parties and perused the record.
Perusal of advertisement at Annexure-1 shows that for the post of Constable (Band), no written examination was to be conducted. The merit was to be determined on the basis of physical test and proficiency test. The separate marks were provided for proficiency test as also for physical test. The petitioners were required to secure minimum 40% or 36% marks in the proficiency test as per their category and Para 6.3 of the advertisement. The aforesaid Para having titled as proficiency test provides that it would be of 15 marks and one would require minimum marks as provided for written examination. Para 6.1 pertains to written examination and minimum marks are provided therein. The petitioners failed to secure required minimum marks in the proficiency test, thus, declared failed. Their aggregate marks may be higher, but apart from the aggregate marks, one was required to obtain minimum qualifying marks in the proficiency test also. Since petitioners failed to secure required marks in proficiency test, thus, cannot be held entitled for appointment.
Both the writ petitions so as the stay applications are accordingly dismissed.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA/14249CWP2011.doc Certificate:
All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, P.A.