Ram Kishore Jakhar vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2932 Raj

(1 of 3) [CW-2591/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2591/2022

Ram Kishore Jakhar S/o Shri Ram Niwas Jakhar, Aged About 25 Years, (Obc Category), Resident Of Jakharo Ki Dhani, Behind Power House, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.), Mobile No. 9667002525.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Ayurved And Indian Medicine Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Ayurved Department, Ashok Marg, Lohagal Road, Savitri College Circle, Ajmer.

3. Dr. Sarvepali Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurved University, Karwar, Nagaur Road, Jodhpur (Raj.) Through Its Registrar.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.P. Khileree. For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Gaur, AAG.

Mr. Suniel Purohit.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

Order

23/02/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against non-inclusion of his name in the provisional merit list for

recruitment of Nurse / Compounder pursuant to the advertisement

No.1/2021 Non-TSP.

Though several pleas have been raised in the writ petition,

learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submission to

the fact that as the candidature of the petitioner for lack of

requisite certificate, has not been considered for granting the

(2 of 3) [CW-2591/2022]

benefit of OBC (NCL), his candidature could not have been

rejected for the general category candidate and as the petitioner

has obtained higher marks than the cut-off meant for general

category, he is entitled to be included in the provisional merit list.

Submissions have been made that the petitioner has

obtained 54.647 marks and cut-off for general category is 54.2956

marks.

Reliance has been placed on Priyanka Vishnoi v. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.2199/2022, decided on 11.02.2022.

Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that the

prayer made by the petitioner now is covered by the judgment in

the case of Priyanka Vishnoi (supra).

In the case of Priyanka Vishnoi (supra), this Court, inter-alia,

came to the following conclusion :-

"The facts are not in dispute wherein the petitioner has obtained 68.42173913 marks and as per the provisional merit list published by the respondents of the unreserved category, large number of candidates, who have obtained marks lesser than the petitioner, their names appear in the said list. Though the petitioner has claimed benefit of her status as OBC (NCL), even if on account of deficient certificate, she is not entitled for benefit of ONC (NCL), she does not loose her status as an unreserved category candidate and as the petitioner stands in merit in unreserved category, her name should have appeared in the provisional merit list issued by the respondents.

The reference in this regard may be made to order of this Court in Bhagyawati Jain v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16893/2018, decided on 30.10.2018, wherein, the candidate had applied in the divorcee category and for lack of a decree in her favour, her candidature was rejected though she had obtained marks higher than the unreserved category candidates, wherein, this Court came to the following conclusion:-

"It is not in dispute that the petitioner has secured 72.2% marks, whereas, the cut off for General Female is 67.93% i.e. the petitioner has more marks than the cut off. Once the petitioner falls within the general cut off, there was no necessity for the respondents to look at her status

(3 of 3) [CW-2591/2022]

as a divorcee and even if she is not treated in that category, she is entitled to grant appointment on the strength of her merit i.e. having obtained more marks than the cut off and, therefore, rejection of petitioner's candidature by the respondents holding her ineligible for the reasons indicated in the order dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure-9) cannot be sustained.

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 24.10.2018 (Annexure-9) qua the petitioner is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

Needful may be done within a period of four weeks."

In view of the above discussion, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to include the name of the petitioner in the final merit list / select list, if she is otherwise eligible as an unreserved category candidate.

In view of the above fact situation, the issue raised by the

petitioner is squarely covered by the determination made by this

Court in the case of Priyanka Vishnoi (supra).

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is

allowed in the light of and with similar directions as given in the

case of Priyanka Vishnoi (supra).

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 85-Rmathur/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)