Rajasthan High Court
Shashi Bala Sharma vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Anr on 26 November, 2021
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19145/2013
Shashi Bala Sharma S/o Krishan Kumar Sharma W/o Rakesh
Sharma, aged about 45 years Behind PWD Store, Gay Wala
Mohalla, Alwar Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasth, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with
Mr. Ashish Yadav, AGC
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
26/11/2021
Brief facts of the case are as under:-
The petitioner being a candidate of General category applied
in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the Department for
Recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-1) Special
Teacher (Mentally Retarded). Out of the 9 vacancies advertised, 6
were meant for candidates of General category, out of which one
was reserved for a female of General category.
The final select list as declared has been reproduced by the
respondents in their reply. The same is reproduced hereunder:
S. Roll Name Sex M. Sel M. Gtotal Rank FA Selected Remarks
No. No. Ctg Cat Other
Cat
1. 52107079 Shashi 2 Gen Gen WL 134.2 1 MR Selected Changed from
Devi General to MR as
Gupta per order of
Court
(2 of 4) [CW-19145/2013]
2. 52105254 Sammi 1 SC Gen 138.87 2 MR Selected Selected
Kapur
Dochaniya
3. 52108787 Lekhraj 1 SC 132.87 3 MR SBCWP 8869/13
pending
4. 52103320 Nemi 1 SC Gen 127.8 4 MR Selected Selected
Chand
Kumhar
5. 52104053 Vishnu 1 BC Gen 114.67 5 MR Selected Category
Kant Sahu changed to MR
as per order of
Court
6. 52107524 Rajesh 1 ST Gen 113.13 6 MR Selected Selected
Kumar
Meena
7. 52103489 Rakesh 1 BC 99.33 7 MR Ineligible as
Kumar B.Ed. Degree of
Prajapat later date
8. 52103710 Sharmila 2 BC WE 92.13 8 MR Absent
9. 52108148 Shashi 2 Gen WE 88.8 9 MR Not appointment
Bala as no post in
Sharma General category
is available
10. 5210387 Saaswati 2 Gen WE 81.6 10 MR -do-
11. 52108246 Urmila 2 SC SC WE 76 11 MR Selected Category
Chhicholia changed to MR
as per order of
Court
After the declaration of the final select list, it was found that
5 candidates of General category had been selected and no
candidate belonging to OBC category was found eligible.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner
deserves to be offered appointment on two grounds:
(i) one post in general category remained vacant as one Lekhraj,
who stood third in merit and belonged to SC category was not
qualified and therefore his candidature ought to have been
rejected;
(ii) no candidate of OBC category was found to be eligible and
therefore too because of the non-availability of any OBC
candidate, petitioner ought to have been selected in terms of
Clause-8 (iv) of the Advertisement which reads as under:
"jktLFkku dh vU; fiNM+k oxZ ¼OBC½@fo"ks"k fiNM+k oxZ ¼SBC½ ¼ukWu Øhehys;j½ ds
vkjf{kr inksa gsrq ik= ,oa mi;qDr vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus ij bu inksa dks fu;ekuqlkj
lkekU; oXkZ ls Hkjk tkosxkA"
(3 of 4) [CW-19145/2013]
Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents
and it has been averred that the cut-off declared for the General
category candidates was 92.13 and the petitioner has not been
selected having scored marks less than the cut-off.
Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material
available on record.
Before proceeding on, it is relevant to mention that today
itself, petition of Lekhraj, the candidate who stood at No. 3 in
merit list has been dismissed by this Court and therefore, one seat
in the General category which had been kept vacant by the
Department remains vacant for all purposes. Although the
petitioner has claimed her appointment in lieu of the seat reserved
for the OBC candidate, no need remains to go into that question
now as one seat of General category too remains vacant and the
petitioner being the next in merit deserves to be offered
appointment. So far as the ground of scoring marks less than the
cut-off is concerned, the declaration of cut-off marks is only for
the purpose of short listing candidates who had applied for the
post and had the petitioner been selected at the relevant time, the
cut-off marks declared would have been the marks obtained by
the petitioner.
It is also relevant to take note of the fact that no cut-off
marks have been declared by the Department qua the OBC, SC or
ST category, which too shows that the declaration of cut-off marks
was only for the purpose of short listing candidates for the
verification of the documents.
Counsel for the petitioner has also averred that along with
appointment the petitioner deserves to be granted consequential
(4 of 4) [CW-19145/2013]
benefits too. In support thereof counsel has relied on the
judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dinesh
Kumar Kashyap and Ors. Vs. South East Central Railway and Ors;
(2019) 12 SCC 798 and the judgment passed by this Court in SB
Civil Writ Petition No. 18144/2015; Teekan Chand Yadav Vs. State
of Rajasthan and ors. decided on 15.02.2021.
In view of the above discussions it is clear that one post qua
the General category and one post qua the OBC category remains
vacant for the recruitment in question. The petitioner being the
next in merit is entitled to be offered appointment in the General
category and therefore, the writ petition of the petitioner deserves
to be allowed and the same is allowed. The respondents are
directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of
Teacher Grade-III (Level-1) (MR) w.e.f. the date the last selected
candidate was appointed.
The petitioner shall not be entitled to any back-wages but
she would be entitled to notional benefits from the date of her
appointment for the purposes of fixation of pay and seniority.
(REKHA BORANA),J
ashu /88
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
