Harendra Singh vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ...

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Harendra Singh vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ... on 24 May, 2024

[2024:RJ-JD:23674]



        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7889/2024

Harendra Singh S/o Sunder Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Vpo
Awar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, (Raj.).
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary
         Agriculture     Management            Institute       Building    Durgapur
         Jaipur Rajasthan.
2.       The Director, Elementary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3.       The District Education Officer, Rajsamand.
4.       The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand.
                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :     Mr. T.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s)           :


               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA

Judgment (Oral) 24/05/2024

1. Grievance of the petitioner, inter alia, stems out of an order dated 05.10.2023, vide which, allegedly candidates lesser meritorious than the petitioner have been given appointment. Whereas, petitioner claims that despite being successful and even after he provided all the requisite documents, he has not been given appointment.

2. Relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that the respondent/RSEB issued an advertisement on 16.12.2022 for the post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-I (Special Education). Petitioner being eligible applied for the same in Non TSP OBC category through online mode. Thereafter petitioner participated in the (Downloaded on 29/05/2024 at 08:37:10 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:23674] (2 of 3) [CW-7889/2024] written examination and being successful called for documents verification.

2.1. After documents verification, respondents issued final selection list, wherein, petitioner's name was shown. Respondents issued the district allotment list, wherein, petitioner's name was shown at S.No.9. Petitioner gave his preference to Upper Primary School, Tapola, Deogarh.

2.3. On 05.10.2023 when respondent No.4 issued the appointment orders, lesser meritorious candidates than the petitioner were appointed and allotted the districts but not the petitioner. He then approached the respondents. He was informed that his certificate by Rehabilitation Council of India was not tagged with the documents. At the time of submitting online documents, as well as, at the time of document verification, petitioner claims to have supplied the RCA certificate. Hence, this petition.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual narrative, which is duly sworn by way of an accompanied affidavit, it does prima facie appear to be a case where petitioner had indeed supplied all the requisite information, particularly the registration certificate from RCA, which is also appended alongwith the petition herewith. On a Court query, learned counsel representing the petitioner informs that the RCA certificate was duly appended prior to the cut off date alongwith the application form through online mode, followed by physically showing the said document at the time of document verification. He points out that, at no stage, petitioner was informed that his registration certificate had any discrepancy of any kind so as to enable him to remove the anomaly. (Downloaded on 29/05/2024 at 08:37:10 PM)

[2024:RJ-JD:23674] (3 of 3) [CW-7889/2024]

4. Notwithstanding, neither any formal order has been passed rejecting his said certificate nor has the petitioner issued the appointment letter despite his being successful, while his counterparts have been appointed and are serving on the posts in question.

5. In the aforesaid peculiar premise, given the nature of order, which I propose to pass formal notice to respondents is being dispensed with as no prejudice would be caused to them.

6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to forthwith carry out the verification upon the petitioner approaching them with web print of the instant order and, in case his RCA certificate is found to be in order, he shall be issued appointment letter alongwith all the notional benefits and seniority with effect from the same date as his counterparts were appointed. In case, for some reasons, the verification cannot be carried out within a period of 30 days, petitioner shall be given provisional appointment, subject to the outcome of the pending inquiry to be made by the respondents.

7. It is made clear that provisional appointment shall not confer any equity on the petitioner so as to claim any special benefit subsequently in case his document, as aforesaid, is not found to be valid.

(ARUN MONGA),J 4-AK Chouhan/-

Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No (Downloaded on 29/05/2024 at 08:37:10 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)