Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Raju Ram vs Union Of India on 12 November, 2021
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Sameer Jain
(1 of 3) [CW-15539/2019]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15539/2019
Raju Ram S/o Sh. Puna Ram Bhadiyare, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village And Post Gangani Via Banar, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Commander Works Engineer (Air Force), Jodhpur.
3. Sh. Raju Ram S/o Sh. Prakash Ram,, Village And Post
Sathin, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Malik
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.P. Bohra
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
12/11/2021
The petitioner has approached this court by way of this
writ petition for assailing the judgment dated 30.05.2019 passed
by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur bench in
Original Application No.290/2003/2018 and M.A.
No.290/0034/2019.
The petitioner participated in the recruitment
undertaken by the respondents for the post of Mate in the year
2014. The written examination was conducted on 10.05.2015.
The result was declared 22.01.2016. The petitioner claims that he
was wrongly denied the opportunity of selection in the selection
process and thus, he filed an application under the RTI Act,
(2 of 3) [CW-15539/2019]
wherein he was informed that he had secured 37.33% marks,
whereas the cut off for the OBC category, to which the petitioner
belongs, was fixed at 66.31%. However, on further pursuit, the
petitioner was given one more information indicating that he had
secured 52.13% marks and the cut off for OBC category was
68.13%. Accordingly, the petitioner approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal alleging that the respondents had indulged
in foul play while ousting the petitioner from the process of
selection and that the respondent No.3, as a matter of fact, was
substituted in the place of petitioner and was fraudulently
provided employment. Learned Tribunal examined the entire
controversy and came to a conclusion that the respondents had
prepared the merit list strictly in accordance with the marks
secured by the applicants and as the petitioner herein secured
much below the cut-off marks in the OBC category, his
candidature was rightly rejected. The Tribunal accordingly
dismissed the Original Application of the petitioner vide order
dated 30.05.2019, which is assailed in this writ petition.
In order to satisfy the petitioner's counsel regarding the
so-called discrepancy in the record, Mr. B.P. Bohra, learned
counsel representing the respondents, was requested to show the
original record/select list to Mr. Malik, who has perused the same.
After perusal of the merit list, Mr. Malik is not in a position to
dispute the fact that the petitioner secured only 37.33% marks in
the written examination. The respondent's counsel has convinced
the Court that second information dated 27.05.2017 provided to
the petitioner was erroneously sent to him by mentioning the
marks of another candidate.
(3 of 3) [CW-15539/2019]
Be that as it may. The fact remains that even if for the
sake arguments, either of the informations is treated to be
correct, the petitioner definitely did not secure the requisite
percentage of marks and his performance falls well below the cut-
off for the OBC category. Hence, his candidature was rightly
rejected by the respondents. The impugned action of the
respondents and the order under challenge do not suffer from any
infirmity, perversity or arbitrariness warranting in interference
therein. Accordingly, the instant writ petition is dismissed as
being devoid of merit.
All pending applications are also disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
56-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
