Rajasthan High Court
Ajmal Khan vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Anr on 18 April, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10015/2015
Ajmal Khan S/o Shri Wahiduddin Khan, aged about 33 years, R/o
Kumharo Ki Chauki near Get well Medical Store Tonk (Raj.).
(Teacher Grade-III) Level-II Subject : Urdu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Panchayati Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary,
Panchayat Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Chittorgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Parihar for
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed
For Respondent(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with
Mr. Sameer Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
18/04/2022
1. Present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India invoking Article 14, 16 and 21 of the
Constitution of India in the matter of advertisement dated
11.08.2013 issued by Zila Parishad for recruitment for the post of
Teacher Grade-III by which 6 posts for subject Urdu were
advertised out of which 4 were meant for open category and two
were for reserved category. One seat out of the two was
earmarked for OBC category.
2. Present writ petition is filed with the following prayer
which reads as under:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your
Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept
and allow this writ petition and the arbitrary
action/omission of the respondents in depriving
(2 of 5) [CW-10015/2015]
the petitioner from appointment on the ground
not having minimum 50% marks in the
graduation may kindly be declared illegal in the
light of judgment of Hon'ble High Court in
cases of Sushil Sompura Vs. State of Rajasthan
and Smt. Raj Rani Vs. State of Rajasthan and
others and accordingly the respondents may
kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on
the post of Teacher Grade-III Level II as per
his merit position with all consequential
benefits."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
petitioner has secured cut off marks as per Annexure-7 i.e. 84.77.
He submits that he took admission in B.A. prior to issuance of
notification of NCTE dated 27.09.2007 and 31.08.2009 and he
completed B.A. in the year 2005 therefore the condition No.7 of
Advertisement dated 11.08.2013 of having 50% marks in
gruduation is not applicable on petitioner and he should be
considered even though he has secured less than 45% marks in
the graduation. He has further relied upon judgment of Division
Bench of this court in DBCWP No.3964/2011 titled as Sushil
Sompura Vs. State of Rajasthan and Smt. Raj Rani Vs. State
of Rajasthan in SBCWP No.10182/2012 as wherein
appointment was given on the post of Teacher Grade-III, Level II
in the similar situation.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has
raised a preliminary objection that when the petition was filed in
the year 2015 no interim protection whatsoever was granted to
the petitioner. He further has drawn our attention to Annexure-6
whereby he has submitted that the petitioner/applicant in the
present case had applied in the category of OBC. The said post is
already filled with the cut off 123.05%. He further contends that
as on date no vacancy vis-a-vis OBC category or qua the
(3 of 5) [CW-10015/2015]
advertisement dated 11.08.2013 exists and on that count the writ
petition has become infructuous.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents has further drawn
attention of this court to Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.
More particularly, Rule 274 (2) wherein under the proviso
following is enacted which reads as under:.
"Rule 274. Preparation of a merit list by
the Committee.- (1) The Committee shall
prepare a merit list of candidates considered
suitable for appointment to [each grade or
category of post except the post specified in
clause (iii) of sub-section (2) of Section 89 of
the Act in the district] and shall on receipt of
requisition from the Panchayat Samitis or Zila
Parishads allot candidates from the list in the
order in which their names occur in the list:
Provided that:-
(i) the number of candidates in the merit list
prepared by the Committee shall not exceed
one and a half time the number of vacancies
actually available at the time such merit list is
prepared; and
(ii) the merit list of candidates so prepared shall
remain valid for a period of one year in general
and upto end of academic session for teachers.
After expiry of such period, it will be deemed to
have lapsed."
6. As per him, even the merit list prepared in the general
category has expired within the period of one year of the
academic session.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance
upon co-ordinate Bench judgment of this court in SB CWP
No.668/2001 titled as Anju Bhargava Vs. State of Rajasthan
and Ors., SB CWP No.5718/1998 titled as Krishan Joshi and
Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. and Hon'ble Apex Court
judgment in the case of Purushottam Vs. Chairman, M.S.E.B.
& Anr. reported in (1999) 6 SCC 49. He submits that he has
(4 of 5) [CW-10015/2015]
approached the court in time, immediately after the cause of
action accrued to him. Thereafter, he had also filed early hearing
application. Therefore, there is no fault on his part.
8. This court has heard the arguments advanced by both
the sides, scanned the records of the writ petition and gone
through the judgments cited at Bar.
9. It is an admitted position that an advertisement was
issued on 11.08.2013 for the 6 posts for the subject of Urdu out of
which 4 were meant for open category in Zila Parishad,
Chittorgarh and one was earmarked for OBC category specifically
and one was other reserved category. The petitioner secured
84.77% marks. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner graduated
in the year 2005 with less than the required 45% as per condition
No.7 (2) of the advertisement. It is also an admitted position that
the petitioner had applied under the OBC category.
10. The preliminary objection which is raised by learned
counsel for the respondents that 6 posts which were advertised
are duly filled and no vacancy as on date exists is worth
consideration. The cut off for OBC category is 124 marks and the
said seat was allotted to Sayra Parveen Mansoori. As on date no
vacancy is available and even in light of Rule 274 (2) referred
(supra) merit list so prepared was only valid and effective for a
period of one year from the end of academic session. The
advertisement was for the year 2013 and the results were
declared in the year 2015 and we are in the year 2022. In light of
Rule 274 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rule even if for a moment it
is assumed that the petitioner can be granted benefit the same
stands as an impediment.
(5 of 5) [CW-10015/2015]
11. For the reasons mentioned above the prayer so made
by the petitioner cannot be entertained. Lastly, the judgments
cited by the petitioner referred above are applicable qua the duly
selected candidates and not qua doubtful or disputed candidates.
12. In light of above, the writ petition is dismissed. All
pending applications are also disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/s-5
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
