Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sharwan Singh Chouhan vs State Of Rajasthan on 3 December, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11142/2020

1. Sharwan Singh Chouhan S/o Kan Singh Ji, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Rolila Khurd, Post Jhanwar, Tehsil Luni, Dist. Jodhpur.

2. Pratap Singh Rathore S/o Bhojraj Singh Rathore, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Lorta, Tehsil Balesar, Dist. Jodhpur.

3. Jay Prakash S/o Dharampal Berwal,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Patwa, Post Jogiwala, Tehsil Bhadra, Dist. Hanumangarh.

4. Bhanwar Singh S/o Jabbar Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Rajputo Ka Bas Rohilla Khurd, Jodhpur.

5. Shyam Singh Rathore S/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 188Kh Rajput Colony, Lohagal, Ajmer.

6. Virendra Kumar S/o Sohan Lal, Aged About 42 Years, R/o House No. 84 B Ward No. 11 Munimaharaj Vidhya Vihar Near Chander Bhawan Kothi Vtc Pilani, Dist. Jhunjhunu.

7. Shrawan Lal Yadav S/o Kalu Ram Yadav, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sethsagar Ward No. 4, Tejpura Hanutiya, Jaipur.

8. Ramniwas S/o Jai Ram Jat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Dhayalon Ki Dhani, Raghunathpura, Ajmer.

9. Ajay Kumar Saharan S/o Harphool Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o D117 Vibhag 1, Sainik Basti, Ward No. 11 Churu.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personal, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10787/2020

1. Narendra Singh Rathore S/o Ganpat Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Tena, Tehsil Shergarh, Dist. Jodhpur.

2. Dilip Singh S/o Khangar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Pratap House 56 Hanuwant B Bjs Colony, Dist. Jodhpur.

3. Dimple Kanwar D/o Salam Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 56 Hanuwant B Bjs Colony, Dist. Jodhpur.

4. Babu Singh Bhati S/o Mohan Singh Bhati, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Ward No. 02 Bhatiyo Ki Dhaniya Panchla Khurd, Jodhpur.

5. Gopal Paliwal S/o Khoob Chand, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Cheel, Tehsil Lohawat, Dist. Jodhpur.

(2 of 9)

6. Jagdeesh Saraswat S/o Ram Prakash Saraswat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Brahmano Ka Bass Birai, Ramchoki Baori, Dist. Jodhpur.

7. Chain Singh S/o Mool Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V/p Ghudiyala, Post Nimba Ka Goan, Tehsil Balesar, Dist. Jodhpur.

8. Ajay Singh Rathore S/o Baloo Singh Rathore, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Birad Nagar Hanwant Nagar, Post Tena, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Personal, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13388/2020

1. Ram Niwas S/o Shri Mohan Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Plot No. 51 Khasara No. 82/01, Ekata Nagar, Ramzan Ka Hatta, Banar Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

2. Surendra Singh S/o Shri Karani Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo- Paniyan Ki Dhani, Tehsil- Bhagera, District - Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

3. Sushil Kumar S/o Shri Gaurishankar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Vpo- Nohar, Tehsil - Nohar, District - Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

4. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Jeetram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Kikrali, Tehsil- Sonari, District - Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

5. Revnt Ram Tard S/o Shri Ramrakha Tard, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 1084, Birmaribas, Jasrasar, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

6. Srawan Ram S/o Shri Balu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Haripura, Post- Indokha, Kuchaman City, District - Nagaur, Rajasthan.

7. Mahavir S/o Shri Nanu Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village - Dabli Kalan, 5 Ndrc, 11 Obl, Dablikalan, District - Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

8. Jagdish Ram S/o Shri Moti Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo- Kayastha Basni, District - Nagaur, Rajasthan.

9. Shyam Singh Rathore S/o Shri Surendra Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o 188 Kh, Rajput Colony, Lohagal, Ajmer, District - Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Secretariat, Government Of

(3 of 9)

Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Secretary, The Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Premises Of State Agriculture Management Institute, Durgapura, Jaipur.

                                                                           ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)              :     Mr. T.S. Rathore.
                                     Mr. M.L. Deora.
For Respondent(s)              :     Mr.   Sunil Beniwal, AAG with
                                     Mr.   Piyush Bhandari.
                                     Mr.   Rakesh Arora.
                                     Mr.   Vishal Jangid, Dy. G.C.



                 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                           Order

03/12/2021

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against the quantum of seats reserved under Ex-

serviceman category and EWS category for the post of Librarian

Grade - III in Direct Recruitment, 2018.

While petitioners - Sharwan Singh Chouhan & Others and

Ram Niwas & Others have questioned the seats reserved

pertaining to Ex-serviceman category, petitioners - Narendra

Singh Rathore & Others have questioned the validity of number of

seats reserved for EWS category.

It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petitions that

advertisement dated 21.05.2018 was issued by the Selection

Board inviting applications for appointment on the post of

Librarian Grade-III, Corrigendum to the Advertisement was issued

on 01.11.2019, whereby the total posts were reduced to 478. The

petitioners being Ex-serviceman/belonging to EWS category

(4 of 9)

applied for the same, they were issued admit card and they

participated in the written examination.

It was indicated in the petitions that the result was awaited.

It was then claimed in the petitions that the posts distributed by

Corrigendum dated 01.11.2019 for the category of Ex-serviceman

and EWS were not according to the reservation available for the

Ex-serviceman category / EWS category i.e. 12.5% / 10% of the

total seats i.e. 478, inasmuch as, for Ex-serviceman category - 60

seats should have been reserved, whereas only 43 seats were

reserved and for EWS category - 48 seats should have been

reserved, whereas only 36 seats were reserved. Based on the said

submissions, it was prayed that the respondents be directed to re-

allot the posts of Librarian Grade - III pursuant to the

Advertisement read with Corrigendum according to reservation by

allotting 12.5% seats to Ex-serviceman category and 10% to EWS

category.

Learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the

Advertisement and the Corrigendum dated 01.11.2019 made

submissions that out of 478 posts, meant for Non-TSP Area, only

43 posts have been reserved for Ex-serviceman category and 36

posts have been reserved for EWS category, which are ex-facie

contrary to the percentage of reservation available to them i.e.

12.5% for Ex-serviceman category and 10% for EWS category

and as such, the petitions deserves to be allowed and the

respondents be directed to re-work the distribution of the seats

and then provide appointment to the candidates as per the

reservation available to them.

(5 of 9)

Learned AAG appearing for the State made submissions that

the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners is wholly misplaced,

inasmuch as, the petitioners are claiming reservation simply by

taking 12.5% / 10% of the total number of seats advertised.

Submissions have been made that posts meant for Ex-

serviceman category are based upon roster system and by

applying the same, total number of posts have been notified in the

Advertisement.

Further submissions were made that posts in question are

District Level Posts, therefore, the same are to be filled at the

District Level and, consequently, the reservation also has to be

calculated at District Level. It was emphasized that though the

cadre of Librarian Grade - III is District Level, the recruitment

through the Selection Board is being made at the State Level and

merely because the recruitment is being made at the State Level,

the reservation for the posts cannot be calculated as if the

vacancies are at the State Level.

A detailed bifurcation has been provided in the reply

indicating the total number of posts for each District and posts

reserved for Ex-serviceman category and EWS category for each

District, based on which, it is submitted that reservation provided

is correct and the same does not call for any interference.

Learned AAG fairly conceded that the reservation is to be

operated in accordance with the roster to be maintained in each

District and in the form of running account from year to year.

However, as EWS reservation has been applied for the first time,

the roster has started from 'zero' and for the reservation for Ex-

serviceman, though the reservation for them is in vogue for quite

(6 of 9)

sometime, for few Districts, in absence of roster, straightway

12.5% reservation has been provided.

Learned counsel placed an order dated 30.11.1983 for

perusal of the Court issued under Rule 2(a) of the Rajasthan

Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 ('the Rules of 1971'),

whereby the Joint Director / Dy. Director and District Education

Officers were delegated the powers for making appointment by

direct recruitment under Sections A, B, C, D, E & F of the Schedule

appended to the Rules of 1971 and for Grade-III, power was

delegated to the District Education Officers. It was submitted that

the above delegation clearly reflects that the posts of Librarian

Grade - III is District Level posts and as such merely because the

recruitment is being done by the Selection Board at the State

Level, the same cannot change the application of provisions of

reservation and, therefore, as the respondents have rightly

provided the reservation, the writ petitions deserve to be

dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to dispute the

fact of the posts of Librarian Grade - III being District Level.

Submissions were made that nowhere in the Advertisement, the

fact regarding the recruitment being made for different District

and Districtwise bifurcation has been indicated and as such the

plea raised in this regard has no basis.

Reliance has been placed on judgment in the case of Tara

Chand v. State of Raj. & Ors.: DBSAW No. 587/2017 and other

connected petitions, decided on 14.09.2017.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

(7 of 9)

It is no doubt true that if the posts distribution as indicated

in the Corrigendum dated 01.11.2019 is taken into consideration,

the same clearly reflects that for the total 478 posts, 36 posts

have been provided for EWS category and 43 posts have been

provided for Ex-serviceman category, which are less than 12.5%

qua Ex-serviceman category and 10% qua EWS category.

The recruitment is governed by the Rules of 1971 and a bare

look at the Schedule 1 attached to the said Rules indicate that for

the post of Librarian Grade - III, the source of recruitment is

100% by Direct Recruitment, the Committee for Direct

Recruitment to the said post consists of DEO (Boys) of the

concerned District as Chairman, DEO (Girls) of concerned District

as Member, DEO (Elementary) of concerned District as Member

and one Specialist to be nominated by the Range Officer

concerned (Male) of the rank not less than Principal as Member

and Seniority for the said posts is 'Inspectorate wise'.

Further, Explanation to Sub Rule (10) to Rule 29 of the Rules

of 1971, which deals with seniority, reads as under:-

Explanation - A person working on the post of Senior Teachers/Teacher or equivalent posts when transferred from one district/range to another district/range on his own request shall be placed just below the junior most person in seniority list of the new district/range from the date of taking over the charge in the new district/range and will cease to have any right of his seniority in the district/range from which he has been transferred.

The above indication made in the Schedule providing the

seniority as Inspectorate wise, the Committee for Direct

Recruitment consisting of District Education Officer of the

concerned District as Chairman and other Members from the

District and provisions of Rule 29 of the Rules of 1971 providing

(8 of 9)

that a person working on the post of Teacher or equivalent posts

when transferred from one district/range to another district/range

on his own request shall be placed just below the junior most

person in seniority list of the new district/range, clearly shows that

the cadre of Librarian Grade - III is Districtwise.

Once, it is found as a fact that the cadre is Districtwise, the

submission made by learned AAG that the reservation has been

provided as per the vacancies of each District, cannot be faulted.

The combined table as produced by the respondents

indicating the reservation to Ex-serviceman category and EWS

category, is as under:-

        Sr.            District            Total                      Reservation
        No.                              Number of
                                                          Ex-serviceman             EWS
                                           Posts
                                                             category             category



























                                                                               (9 of 9)








                                                  Total                      478                      43         36
                                                                                                                            "

                                        The      above    table,    reflects       that    the        respondents,       have

operated the roster for Ex-serviceman by taking 8 th, 16th, 24th,

32nd, 40th, 48th etc. posts reserved for Ex-serviceman category and

11th, 22nd, 30th, 41st, 51st, 60th, 70th, 79th etc. posts reserved for

EWS category in terms of the 100 point roster, which action of the

respondents in the present circumstances, also cannot be faulted.

Insofar as the reliance placed on judgment in the case of

Tara Chand (supra) is concerned, the said judgment, did not deal

with the case of combined recruitment with cadre of the post at

District Level and as such, the said judgment is not applicable to

the facts of the present case.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions have no

substance, the same are, therefore, dismissed.