Shekhar Son Of Shri Shanker Lal vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
2021 Latest Caselaw 6438 Raj/2

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3541/2021

1.   Shekhar Son Of Shri Shanker Lal, Aged About 28 Years,
     Resident Of Village Bairasar Munjhla, Post Jaitpura, Tehsil
     Rajgarh, District Churu, Presently Residing At 55/85,
     Sector 5, Heera Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2.   Basant Lal Raigar Son Of Shri Gopal Raigar, Aged About
     28 Years, Resident Of Village Chandma Khurd, Post
     Chandma Kalan, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.
3.   Ramesh Pratihar Son Of Shri Mathura Lal, Aged About 25
     Years, Resident Of Village And Post Gudha Gokulpura,
     Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi (Raj.).
4.   Ravi Gawariya Son Of Shri Kishan Lal Gawariya, Aged
     About 31 Years, Resident Of Rajiv Colony, Near Court,
     Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
5.   Manish Rajoriya Son Of Shri Nirbhay Singh, Aged About
     38 Years, Resident Of Near Shiva Talkies, Sahayog Nagar,
     Bharatpur (Rajasthan)).
6.   Vijay Singh Son Of Shri Lal Singh, Aged About 42 Years,
     Resident Of 55-A, Hardev Nagar, Dhawas, Ajmer Road,
     Jaipur.
                                                                 ----Petitioners
                                  Versus
1.   Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through The Registrar
     General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.
2.   Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
     (Rajasthan).
                                                               ----Respondents

Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3188/2021

1. Sulatan Singh Son Of Shri Pokhar Mal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Jairampura, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.)

2. Sandeep Kumar Son Of Shri Ramniwas Yadav, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Shekhawar, Post Chandpur, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.)

3. Praveen Kumar Son Of Shri Sumer Singh Yadav, Aged

(2 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

About 28 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Bhungara Ahir, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar (Raj.)

4. Guruveer Singh Lomod Son Of Shri Samda Ram Lomod, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Dewan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Khemchand Sharma Son Of Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Dhani Bhaduka Ki Nangal, Suswatan, District Jaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3389/2021 Anil Kumar Sharma S/o Rakesh Sharma, R/o Thakur Potha, Chitaura, Dholpur, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3542/2021 Mohammed Imran S/o Sh. Abbas Ali Khan, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo Beswa, Sikar, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar General

2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3606/2021

1. Rahul Gupta S/o Damodar Gupta, R/o 70-A Kalyan Nagar Road No. 4, Murlipura, Jaipur 302039

2. Bhanu Pratap Sharma S/o Pushpendra Sharma, 129,130 Patel Nagar, Jaipur

3. Umesh Sharma S/o Om Prakash Sharma, Plot No. 18 Bhudhra Ko Bas Jhotwara, Jaipur,

4. Jitendra Verma S/o Govind Ram Verma, Ward No. 1,

(3 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

Dadiya Rampura, Sikar Rajasthan.

5. Virander Singh Rawat S/o Suraj Singh Rawat, During Jaguar Road, Badaliya Mohalla, Kedali, Ajmer.

6. Kuldeep Meena S/o Jagdish Prasad Meena, Maryada School Ke Pass, Bharat Nagar Bundi, Rajasthan.

7. Durgesh Singh Hada S/o Brijraj Singh Hada, Housing Board Colony Near Kalka Mata Mandir, Jhalawar.

----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajasthan High Court Jaipur, Bench Jaipur Through Registrar General.

2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3936/2021 Bhanwar Lal Choudhary S/o Shrawan Lal Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vill. Post Sawali, Tehsil Mojmabad, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Registrar (Examination) Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4339/2021 Sanjay Chawla S/o Shri Babu Lal Chawla, Aged About 26 Years, R/o New Colony, Near Police Station, Jobner, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan High Court, At Jodhpur Through Its Registrar (Examination), Jodhpur.

----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4419/2021 Ashok Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Lala Ram Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Natlalpura, Post Nemera, Jhotwara, Tehsil - Jaipur, District Jaipur, (Rajasthan),

----Petitioner Versus The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

(4 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

----Respondent D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4542/2021 Vijendra Singh Rajawat S/o Shri Haladhar Singh Rajawat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Ganwada, Po-Kolada, Tehsil-Bonli, Sawai Madhopur - 322023.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court, Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342001.

2. Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan - 342001.

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6563/2021 Satish Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdish Narayan Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Tholai, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar General.

2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9388/2021

1. Laxman Datt Yadav S/o Shri Ramniwas Yadav, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhani Mohabbat Singh Wali, Village Bhaislana, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Pardeep Singh S/o Ramsingh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Bhaiswata Khurd, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, Through Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court Building, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Respondent

(5 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahendra Sharma Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora Mr. Vivek Yadav on behalf of Dr. Mahesh Sharma Mr. Harshal Tholia Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhardwaj Mr. S.P. Singh Mr. R.P. Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Akshit Gupta and Mr. Harendra Neel

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

15/11/2021

These petitions relate to the recruitment to the post of

Drivers for which the High Court Administration had issued an

advertisement on 22.07.2020. In all these petitions, one or the

other or both of the following issues arise:-

First issue is with respect to the cut off marks prescribed by

the High Court Administration for eligibility for the written main

examination on the basis of the screening test conducted. The

criteria applied by the Administration is to call 10 times the

number of vacancies notified for each category of candidates such

as General, SC, ST, OBC etc. In some cases this resulted into

reserved category cut off marks coming higher than the general

category.

Contention of petitioners is that this is not permissible and

the administration therefore committed a legal error in the process

of shortlisting. The second issue arising in some of the petitions is

with respect to requirement of holding a valid transport vehicle

license by the candidates. Broadly speaking, the contention of the

(6 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

petitioner is that RTO authorities have issued driving license in

their favour for four wheeler and that there would be no separate

requirement of the licenses being issued for driving a transport

vehicle.

It is undisputable that both these issues have been decided

by the High Court by two separate judgments. Both these

judgments arise out of the same recruitment process. In case of

Khushi Ram Gurjar Vs. Rajasthan High Court in Civil Writ

Petition No.10274/2020 and connected petitions, a Division

Bench of the High Court vide judgment dated 28.10.2021 after

referring to earlier decisions of the High Court and several

Supreme Court judgments held and observed as under:-

"Considering the view expounded by Division Benches of this Court in the above cases while placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Chattar Singh (supra),it is clear that the concept of vertical reservation and migration to the higher category cannot be applied in a shortlisting exercise which is provided under Rule 25 of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver and Class IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a similar view taken by the Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2016"State of Raj. and another. Vs. Hanuman Jat and others" has been stayed by Hon'ble the Apex Court, is not quite accurate. The order passed by the Supreme Court shows that the judgment of the High Court is not stayed, instead following interim formula was provided:-

"It is submitted that in view of the fact that by the interim orders, recruitment for the purpose offilling up the posts of Patwaris is held up, the State is greatly handicapped in its administration. For the interim measure, the State as well as the appellants agree that the ends of justice would be met for the time being by permitting all the candidates who secure equal to or more than 104.51 marks in the preliminary examination (irrespective of the category to which candidates belong) be permitted to appear in the final examination without prejudice to the rights of the parties and the various question of law arising in the

(7 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

appeals. The respondents are permitted to complete the process of selection of Patwaris in accordance with law."

In addition thereto, we may observe that the recruitment notification made a specific stipulation in Clause 12(1)(vi) that a screening test would be held for shortlisting the candidates and that the list of the candidate declared successful for participating in the final list of recruitment i.e. job test and personal interview would be prepared "category-wise". This recruitment condition of the advertisement was not challenged by any of the petitioners before applying and participating in the recruitment process. Thus, they cannot be allowed to do so at this belated stage when the result of screening test is already been declared. The consequence of a candidate not challenging a so-called offending clause of the recruitment notification before participating in the selection process was considered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in AIR 1995 SC 1088 and it was held as below:

"9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being concerned respondents herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Upto this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview candidates by the concerned Members of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the concerned contesting respondents. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, that they have filed this petition.

It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or Selection Committee was not properly constituted.

In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v.

Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Ors.

MANU/SC/0478/1986:[1986]1SCR855, it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the

(8 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.

10. Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful."

In the case of State of Punjab and others Vs. Manjit Singh (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that for the purpose of shortlisting, it would not at all be necessary to provide cut off marks. However, on a careful consideration of the said judgment, it becomes clear that in the said case no rule analogous to Rule 15of the Rules of 1999 or Rule 25(ii) of the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts (Driver and Class IV Employees) Service Rules, 2017, was under consideration and thus, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable.

Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to challenge the action of the respondents in preparing the category- wise list of successful candidates who have been declared qualified for participating in the final phase of recruitment i.e. job test and personal interview.

In addition, we may observe that from the record of the respondents, as many as 453 candidates of the General Category have been summoned for the job test and personal interview against 44 available seats. None of these candidates have been impleaded as party respondents by the petitioners in these writ petitions and thus, in case, the relief sought for is extended to the petitioners, the same may result into ouster of many of these candidates, who were necessary parties but have not been joined as such in this petition.

As a consequence of the above discussion, we find no illegality, infirmity or arbitrariness in the impugned action of the respondent warranting interference therein in the extraordinary writ jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by virtue of Article 226of the Constitution of India.

Hence, the writ petitions are rejected as being devoid of merit.

No order as to costs."

(9 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

The first issue thus stands concluded against the petitioners

by a judgment of Co-ordinate Bench.

With respect to the second issue of requirement of holding a

valid transport vehicle license, the Division Bench in case of

Neelam Kanwar Vs. Rajasthan High Court (Writ Petition

No.4565/2021) in an order dated 20.10.2021 has dealt with the

issue in following manner:-

"The petitioner has applied for the post of Driver, for which an advertisement was issued by the High Court Administration on 22.07.2020. As per the recruitment rules as well as advertisement, in order to be eligible for appointment, the candidates had to have a valid driving licence for light motor vehicle as well as transport vehicle. The petitioner applied for the post after uploading a driving licence, which showed that she had a driving licence only for the purpose of light motor vehicle. She was allowed to participate in the screening test without verification of the eligibility. However, upon examination of her eligibility, the High Court Administration was of the opinion that she was not qualified since she did not have a valid driving licence for transport vehicle. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this petition contending that her performance in the screening test would justify for calling her for further selection and she was otherwise qualified for the post in question.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner is holding a valid licence for light motor vehicle. This licence was uploaded along with her application for appointment. Learned counsel submitted that by virtue of judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Devagan vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2017 (14) SCC 663] and on the basis of Circular dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, a person holding a light motor vehicle licence would not require a separate licence for transport vehicle. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, thus, the petitioner was duly qualified and despite this, she was not called for further test.

On the other hand, the case of the High Court Administration is that the light motor vehicle and transport vehicle are not synonymous category.

There are different provisions under the Motor

(10 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

Vehicles Act. There is clear distinction between the two. In particular, learned counsel for the respondents highlighted that even as per the Circular dated 16.04.2018, a person holding valid driving licence for light motor vehicle can drive transport vehicle only as long as unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. In case of the High Court advertisement, there was no such specification provided. In fact, the High Court Administration required that the Driver should be appointed who can drive the vehicle of which unladen weight may exceed 7500 kg. Also. It was precisely for this reason that the High Court Administration has clearly provided in the advertisement that the candidate, in order to be eligbile for appointment, must hold a valid licence for light motor vehicle as well as transport vehicle. In the present case, the petitioner does not satisfy the requirement.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we find no reason to interfere. The High Court Administration has held the petitioner ineligible for appointment on the ground that she does not hold a valid driving licence for transport vehicle. The fact that no separate driving licence has been issued in favour of the petitioner is undisputed. By virtue of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukund Devagan (supra) and Circular dated 16.04.2018 issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, the petitioner may be eligible to drive a transport vehicle but only as long as unladen weight does not exceed 7500 kg. The requirement by the High Court Administration has to be borne in mind while testing the qualification of the candidates for appointment. We may also notice that Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act envisages that a licence of driving a transport vehicle would be effective for a period of 3 years and in case of other licence, the same would be effective for a period of 20 years from the date of issue, of course, subject to the ceiling of the age of the holder being 50 years. Thus, the Motor Vehicles Act also makes the clear distinction between the licence for transport vehicle and rest. In case of a transport vehicle, the requirement for periodical renewal is more stringent.

In the result, the petition is dismissed."

The second issue is also thus covered against the petitioners.

(11 of 11) [CW-3541/2021]

In view of the decisions of earlier Division Benches covering

both the issues, it is not necessary to give separate reasons for

not accepting these two grounds.

In the result, all the petitions are dismissed.

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

KAMLESH KUMAR/N.GANDHI/146,148, 149-151, 154,156-160

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)