Manvendra Singh Rathore vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 2552 Raj

[2023/RJJD/008060]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7112/2021

Manvendra Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Upendra Singh Rathore, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Bhawta, Tehsil And District Ajmer.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.

4. The Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhakti Singh for Mr. Sushil Solanki For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG with Mr. Kailash Choudhary

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

29/03/2023

1. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:-

"i) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, the Clause 7(iv) of the advertisement dtd.4.12.2019 (Annex.3) may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside and the respondents be directed to conduct physical efficiency test of the petitioner and if he is otherwise found eligible, may be granted appointment on the post of Constable (Driver) with all consequential benefits.

ii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

iii) Cost of the writ may be awarded to the petitioner."

[2023/RJJD/008060] (2 of 3) [CW-7112/2021]

2. The facts apropos for the present purposes are that the

petitioner vied for the post of Constable (Driver) pursuant to the

recruitment notification dated 04.12.2019 wherein, Clause 7(iv) of

the advertisement required that a candidate must have a valid

permanent licence issued at least one year prior to the date of

advertisement.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that issue

involved in the present writ petition has been set at rest by this

Court vide its judgment dated 15.01.2020 rendered in the case of

of Akshay Kumar Khatri Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.7092/2019).

4. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General

appearing for the respondent - State is not in a position to dispute

the aforesaid position of facts and law.

5. In the case of Akshay Kumar Khatri (supra), this Court has

held thus:-

"11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that the respondents have non-suited the petitioner on absolutely flimsy and unsustainable count.

12. Concededly, condition No.8(iv) of the subject advertisement contains a condition that a candidate applying for the post of Constable (Driver) must have a valid driving license issued at least a year before the date of the advertisement, but such requirement or stipulation is neither contained in the standing order dated 18.05.2018 nor in the Rules.

13. A condition in the advertisement, which is dehors standing order or statutory Rules governing recruitment, cannot be countenanced, more particularly when it restricts the right of employment and impinges upon eligibility.

14. That apart, impugned condition is per se arbitrary and violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, it has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Candidature cannot be rejected on fortuitous circumstances of issuance of license. There is no difference between

[2023/RJJD/008060] (3 of 3) [CW-7112/2021]

the petitioner and other candidate whose license was issued prior to 24.05.2017 Obtaining driving license is like obtaining a qualifying degree. A candidate's eligibility can not be decided on the basis of date of his degree.

15. Mr. Choudhary's argument, in a bid to justify the impugned condition, that the respondents wanted to ensure at least a year's experience, does not stand to logic, more particularly, when the requirement or condition of experience does not exist in the standing order or in the advertisement. That apart, mere possession of license does not ensure experience as a driver, it is at least a qualification to drive.

16. So far as Mr. Choudhary's contention that petitioner having participated in the process with such condition, cannot challenge his rejection, is concerned, this Court is of the view that since, the impugned condition itself is contrary to the standing order dated 18.05.2018, so also against the fundamental rights of getting employment, besides being arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner can maintain challenge to such condition, despite having participated in the process.

.............

18. As a result of discussion aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned condition No.8(iv) of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 is quashed. The respondents are directed to give appointment and posting to the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible."

6. In view of the aforesaid adjudication, the present writ

petition is allowed and the impugned condition No.7(iv) of the

recruitment notification dated 04.12.2019 is, hereby, quashed.

7. The respondents are directed to give appointment and

posting to the petitioner, if he is otherwise eligible.

8. Needful be done within a period of eight weeks from today.

9. Stay application and all other interlocutory applications stand

dispose of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 61-Arvind/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)