Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mayuri Bansal vs State Of Rajasthan on 16 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 4) [CW-12979/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12979/2019
Mayuri Bansal D/o Sh. Sanjay Kumar Bansal, Aged About 24
Years, At Present 19, Tilak Nagar, 4-Near Segwa Housing Board,
Sethi, Chittorgarh, Tehsil And District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Energy Department, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Through Its
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan 302005.
3. Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairmen
And Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Panchsheel Nagar, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
4. Joint Director (Per. And Admin.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan 302005.
5. Sh. Rajan Chechani S/o Sh. Ramesh Chechani, Chechani
Chambers, A-77, Dr. R.k. Colony, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dinesh Godara
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
16/03/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has
challenged action of the respondents in ignoring the petitioner and
giving appointment to respondent No.5 - Rajan Chechani.
2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner vied for the post
of Accounts Officer notified by recruitment notification
No.01/2018-19 issued by respondent - AVVNL.
(2 of 4) [CW-12979/2019]
3. In the notification aforesaid, out of 8 posts, 2 posts were
reserved for female candidates.
4. After the recruitment process was undertaken, the
respondent - AVVNL issued provisional merit list (Annex.P/4) in
which petitioner's name was mentioned at Serial No.12.
5. After undertaking the exercise of document verification etc,
the list of selected candidates was issued on 07.09.2018 and
appointment was offered initially to 7 candidates (last candidate
being - Dinesh Kumar).
6. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the respondents have filled the eight post by offering
appointment to Rajan Chechani (respondent No.5), who was
reflected at merit No.11, ahead of petitioner, who was at merit
No.12.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there were
two posts reserved for 'women' category and only two female
candidates namely Khusbhu Jain and Neha Lakhani have been
offered appointment, who stood at merit No.3 & 10 respectively in
the provisional merit list.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Khusbhu Jain
(merit No.3) has secured her appointment on the basis of her own
merit and, therefore, in order to comply with the spirit of
reservation, the respondents ought to have offered appointment
to the petitioner, while ignoring Rajan Chechani.
9. In considered opinion of this Court, the arguments of the
petitioner is fallacious and contrary to the settled legal position.
Reservation of women category operates horizontally and if there
is sufficient representation of women, the women candidate
(3 of 4) [CW-12979/2019]
cannot be given additional reservation, ahead of the merit
position.
10. Since two posts were reserved for women and two female
candidates namely Khusbhu Jain and Neha Lakhani have already
been given appointment, the petitioner cannot claim any right
against two seats reserved for female candidates.
11. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar
Daria Vs. RPSC reported in (2007) 8 SCC 785 has held as under :
"9. The second relates to the difference between the
nature of vertical reservation and horizontal
reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST
and OBC under Article 16(4) are 'vertical reservations'.
Special reservations in favour of physically
handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or
15(3) are 'horizontal reservations'. Where a vertical
reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class
under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such
Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts
and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on
their own merit, their number will not be counted
against the quota reserved for the respective
Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC
candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to
open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds
the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it
cannot be said the reservation quota for SCs has been
filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and
available in addition to those selected under open
competition category. (Vide - Indira Sawhney, R.K.
Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, Union of India v. Virpal
Singh Chauvan and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul.)
But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical
(social) reservations will not apply to horizontal
(special) reservations. Where a special reservation for
women is provided within the social reservation for
Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill
up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit
and then find out the number of candidates among
them who belong to the special reservation group of
'Scheduled Caste Women'. If the number of women in
such list is equal to or more than the number of
(4 of 4) [CW-12979/2019]
special reservation quota, then there is no need for
further selection towards the special reservation
quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite
number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be
taken by deleting the corresponding number of
candidates from the bottom of the list relating to
Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special)
reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation.
Thus women selected on merit within the vertical
reservation quota will be counted against the
horizontal reservation for women."
12. In light of judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Rajesh
Kumar Daria (supra) and this Court in the case of Smt. Megha
Shetty Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in 2013 (4) RLW
3227 (Raj.), there is no merit in the present petition for which, it
is, hereby, dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
108-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
