Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Ravikant Suthar vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 December, 2021
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13434/2021
Ravikant Suthar S/o Sh. Mahendra Kumar, aged about 26 Years,
Resident of Ward No.02, Nanda Colony Gandhi Nagar, Tehsil
Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Home Department,
Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General of Police, Government of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, through its
Chairman.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshad Bhadu &
Mr. Sameer Pareek.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with
Mr. Kailash Choudhary.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
17/12/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 03.09.2021 (Annex.6) and order dated
03.09.2021 pertaining to Cadre S.I. (AP) and S.I. (IB) and seeking
direction to respondents to prepare a fresh cadre allotment list for
the post of S.I. (AP) and S.I. (IB) in accordance with established
principles of law in accordance with preferences of the candidates.
It is, inter-alia, submitted by the counsel for the petitioner
that in the cadre allotment list dated 03.09.2021 (Annex.6) a
candidate, namely, Mahadev Prasad Gurjar, whose merit No. is 23
(2 of 4) [CW-13434/2021]
and he belongs to MBC category, has been accorded appointment
under the OBC category, which is incorrect and in case the said
candidate is accorded appointment in MBC category, the petitioner,
who belongs to OBC category, would get cadre of S.I. (AP) and as
such, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be
set aside and the respondents be directed to do the needful in
terms of settled principles.
Learned counsel for the respondents has referred to Circular
dated 01.07.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel and
judgment of this Court in Bharat Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of
India & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12444/2019 decided on
15.10.2019.
Faced with the said Circular and the judgment of this Court,
learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the
judgment in the case of Bharat Kumar Choudhary (supra) is per
incuriam, inasmuch as the same does not take into consideration
certain provisions of Act of 2017 and the law governing the field
and as such, the judgment in the case of Bharat Kumar Choudhary
(supra) cannot govern the present case. Reliance has been placed
on Saurav Yadav & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2021) 4 SCC
542.
The relevant portion of the Circular dated 01.07.2018 reads
as under:-
"bl laca/k esa lHkh fu;qfDr izkf/kdkfj;ksa dks Li"V :i ls
O;kfn"V fd;k tkrk gS fd dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 26-07-
2017 ds vuqlkj ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk Qhl ds vfrfjDr vk;q
lhek] vadksa esa rFkk 'kkjhfjd n{krk esa fcuk NwV izkIr fd;s tkus
dh fLFkfr esa fofHkUu foHkkxksa }kjk fofHkUu inksa ij dh tkus okyh
HkfrZ;ksa esa vfr fiNM+k oxZ ds vH;FkhZ dk ;fn ojh;rk (Merit) esa
p;u gksrk gS rks og lkekU; fjDr ds fo:) p;fur ekuk
tk;sxkA
(3 of 4) [CW-13434/2021]
lkekU; oxZ esa p;u ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa loZizFke fiNM+k
oxZ dks ns; 21 izfr'kr vkj{k.k esa fopkj fd;k tk;sxk rRi'pkr
bUgsa vfr fiNM+k oxZ ds fy, fu/kkZfjr 1 izfr'kr vkj{k.k esa fopkj
fd;k tk;sxkA mDr funsZ'kksa dh iw.kZr% ikyuk lqfu'pr djkosaA "
A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bharat Kumar
Choudhary (supra) inter-alia on the said aspect came to the
following conclusion: -
"57. It is true that not only the provisions of the
Act of 2017 (after amendment) provide for 5%
reservation to the more backward classes and a
separate reservation is available for persons with
disability in each of the category; but in considered
opinion of this Court, More Backward Class (MBC)
instead of being a separate class, is a category within
the class, namely "backward classes" and as such, the
action of the respondents, in considering candidature
of Durgalal Gujar and Anita Kumari hailing from MBC
NCL (PwD) Category against the OBC NCL (PwD)
category as they had secured more marks than the
cut-off of OBC, cannot be said to be illegal.
58. During the course of arguments, an
argument was advanced that if these two candidates
(Durgalal Gujar and Anita Kumari) are considered as
OBC-PwD, then 4 seats reserved for MBC-PwD
category remained unoccupied and the select list is
thus contrary to law.
59. This Court is of the considered opinion that
such argument is not available to the petitioner, who
belongs to OBC-NCL (PwD) Category. Such grievance
(if any) can be raised by a person belonging to more
backward classes only. That apart, as held earlier - a
candidate from OBC cannot be considered against the
seats reserved for MBC, petitioner cannot stake his
claim qua the 4 seats reserved for MBC-PwD.
(4 of 4) [CW-13434/2021]
60. This Court does not find any infirmity in the
respondents' action of considering Durgalal Gujar and
Anita Kumari as candidates belonging to OBC NCL
(PwD) Category.
61. The writ petition filed by the petitioner,
therefore, fails.
62. The stay petition, so also all interlocutory
applications, stand disposed of accordingly."
In view of specific Circular as well as the judgment of this
Court in the case of Bharat Kumar Choudhary (supra), the issue
raised by the petitioner already stands concluded.
Insofar as the plea raised about the judgment, being per
incuriam is concerned, the submissions pertain to interpretation
put by the Coordinate Bench on certain provisions and for the said
purpose, the petitioner has to take appropriate route and cannot
seek adjudication by this court on the said aspect. Further, the
observation made in paragraph 59.1 in the case of Saurav Yadav
(supra), apparently has no application to the facts of the present
case.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition, the
same is therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
20-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
