Inder Chand Sihag vs State Of Raj And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:20813)

Rajasthan High Court

Inder Chand Sihag vs State Of Raj And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:20813) on 2 May, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:20813]                     (1 of 4)                        [CW-6678/2008]


        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6678/2008

Inder Chand Sihag, S/o Heeralal Sihag, aged 45 years, R/o
Nethawa, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Primary and Upper
Primary School Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.    Rajasthan      Public       Service     Commission,          Ajmer   through
Secretary.
3. Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Tanmay Dhand
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Chandra Shekhar for
                                   Mr. Bharat Saini, G.C.
                                   Mr. Imran Khan, AGC



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                       Order

02/05/2024

1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"Hence prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to direct the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned condition and the order dated 8.5.08 (Annex.3) issued by the Respondent No.2 and further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Primary & Upper Primary School Teacher (Teacher Grade III) under the category of Disabled Persons with all consequential benefits; Any other order or relief as deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

(Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:37 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:20813] (2 of 4) [CW-6678/2008]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a physically disabled person and as per the 'Permanent Disability Certificate' issued by the Medical Officer dated 25.06.1998, it is evident that the petitioner suffers from 40% permanent disability (Annexure-1). On 30.10.2006, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter, RPSC) issued an advertisement qua the post of Primary School Teacher, Grade- III. The petitioner possessing all the requisite qualifications applied for the said post under the category of 'disabled persons', and was assigned the admit card by the respondents. The result qua the said recruitment was declared on 16.03.2007 and the petitioner's name was reflected in the provisional merit list. It was further submitted that on 08.05.2008, RPSC issued a letter to the petitioner for submission of 'Disability Certificate' in accordance with the relevant rules i.e. Rajasthan Disabled Persons Employment Rules, 2000, enforced on 20.11.2000. As per the provisions of Rule 2 (l), the certificate should have been issued by a 'Medical Board' consisting of three persons vouching for the said disability.

3. In this regard, as the petitioner's certificate was purportedly amiss of the said requirements, the petitioner was ousted from joining on the concerned post. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed a notice for demand of justice. It was duly mentioned in the said notice, that the petitioner has already submitted the certificate issued by a competent authority, i.e. Senior Specialist, Orthopedician of the competent Government Hospital.

(Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:37 PM) [2024:RJ-JP:20813] (3 of 4) [CW-6678/2008]

4. Furthermore, it was submitted that as per the provisions of Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the certificate submitted by the petitioner was issued by the competent authority and was worth consideration by the respondents. Moreover, qua the fact of delay, it was averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had approached this Court on the earliest possible day, hence, the petition should be considered. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court enunciated in Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in Civil Appeal No.2679/2024, wherein it was held that when the proceedings are in rem and the prayer in the writ petition is non-tenable due to the paucity of time, the Constitutional Court cannot dismiss the writ proceedings, on the ground of futility. In light of Manoj Kumar (Supra), it was further submitted that the primary duty of the court is to override the arbitrary action/ ultra vires act conducted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that when the petition was filed, the petitioner was of 45 years of age and as on the present date, has reached the age of superannuation. Furthermore, with the efflux of time, the selection process qua the said advertisement is over and no interim order/ protection was granted in favor of the petitioner. Hence, the lis in question does not survive. It was further averred that for a prolonged period of time, the file was inactive and no sincere efforts were made by the petitioners to contest the matter. The matter after issuance of notice(s), was considered in the Year 2017 and thereafter, is coming for hearing in the Year 2024. (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:37 PM)

[2024:RJ-JP:20813] (4 of 4) [CW-6678/2008] Therefore, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable in the instant matter.

6. Heard and considered.

7. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and upon perusal of the records, the following are observations, are noteworthy:-

7.1 That as on date, the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Hence, reinstatement is not possible.

7.2 That in the case at hand, the requirement qua the furnishing of certificate entailed that the said certificate should be undersigned by the 'Medical Board', as per the erstwhile rules applicable at the said time. Therefore, the submission of 'Disability Certificate' undersigned by Single Doctor is not worthy of consideration, falling short of the prescribed requirement. 7.3 That at this belated stage, the lis in question does not survive and with the efflux of time, the said selection process has already attained finality.

8. In cumulative view of the above, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J JKP/s-465 (Downloaded on 17/05/2024 at 09:26:37 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)