Babu Lal Yadav S/O Shri Kana Ram ... vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 6344 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 423/2020
 Babu Lal Yadav S/o Shri Kana Ram Yadav, Aged About 43 Years,
 Resident Of Village And Post Divrala, Tehsil Shrimadhopur,
 District Sikar (Rajasthan).
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                      Versus
 1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The
          Government,        Department           Of      Personnel,      Rajasthan
          Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
 2.       The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
          Secretary, Ajmer (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Harendra Neel on behalf of Mr. Vigyan Shah

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Judgment 10/11/2021

This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the

judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 14.02.2020 in Civil

Writ Petition No. 4921/2003.

Briefly stated the facts are that the appellant-petitioner

belongs to a physically handicapped category (locomotor

disability). He applied in response to the Combined Competitive

Examination, 1997 conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service

Commission. The result of selection was declared on 19.05.2000

in which the name of the petitioner was shown at 147 in the merit

list. Petitioner however was not offered appointment. He,

therefore issued a notice to the Public Service Commission. Since

no response was received, he filed the writ petition. In the writ

petition, the stand taken by the official respondents was that

(2 of 3) [SAW-423/2020]

pursuant to an order passed by the Commissioner, Disabilities in

case of Alok Saxena Vs. Principal Secretary, DOP, the respondents

had bifurcated three vacancies reserved for physically

handicapped candidates as per the different categories of

physically handicapped. Resultantly upon reshuffling, only one

vacancy was available for candidates with locomotive disability.

Since a candidate belonging to the said category and more

meritorious than the petitioner was available, he was appointed

and therefore the petitioner could not be offered appointment.

In view of such developments, the learned Single Judge

dismissed the writ petition on three grounds:-

(i) That the petitioner had not challenged the order dated

15.06.2001 as amended on 31.05.2001 and had not challenged

the orders of re-distribution of vacancies.

(ii) That the petitioner had not challenged the order of

redistribution of vacances or order passed by the Commisioner,

Disabilities.

(iii) That the petitioner has not impleaded the persons who were

appointed and were likely to be affected if the prayers of the

petitioner were granted.

Learned Single Judge also noted that petitioner was already

appointed in the year 2012 in his category of reservation.

Learned counsel for the appellant-original petitioner made a

forceful and attractive submission but which we are unable to

accept. Firstly when the RPSC redistributed the vacancies amongst

different categories of handicapped. It was merely implementing

the directives of the Commissioner of disabilities and such action

therefore cannot be seen as retrospective exercise of executive

powers. Further, Counsel may be correct in pointing out that the

(3 of 3) [SAW-423/2020]

change in distribution of vacancies was never communicated to

him and he had challenged the cancellation of his selection, did

not have to independently challenge the distribution of vacancies.

However, he is not correct in contending that the petitioner did not

require to join the persons who were appointed and were

therefore likely to be affected if the petitioner's prayer was

granted. It was contended by the petitioner that original view of

reserving of three vacancies for handicapped categories

candidates in general was maintained, those candidates who

received appointment upon redistribution of vacancies amongst

separate handicapped categories would have to vacate the seat for

the petitioner and which cannot be done without hearing them.

Even if these developments were brought to the notice of the

petitioner in response to the petition, the petitioner could have

asked for amendment and impleadment of necessary parties.

Apart from these technicalities, on merits also we do not

think that the petitioner has made out any case for interference.

Distributing reserved vacancies for physically handicapped

candidates according to the separate sub-categories is a statutory

provision. RPSC therefore while implementing the decision of

Commissioner, Disabilites was merely acting in terms of the

statutory requirements.

Thus, by virtue of correcting the distribution of vacancies

amongst physically handicapped categories, the name of the

petitioner had to be deleted from the select list.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

                                    (REKHA BORANA),J                                                      (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

                                   Kamlesh Kumar/N.Gandhi/2







Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)