Rajasthan Public Service ... vs Ram Chandra Sihag ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8380 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:34512-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 369/2023

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Appellant Versus

1. Ram Chandra Sihag S/o Shri Mohan Dan Sihag, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village Sherpura, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.

2. State of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Appellant : Mr. Tarun Joshi (through VC) Mr. Vikram Singh For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Mahaveer Bhanwariya

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment

11/10/2023

1. This intra court appeal has been filed by the appellant-RPSC

being aggrieved with the order dated 24.01.2023 passed by the

learned Single Judge of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.8960/2014 (Pram Chandra Sihag Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr.), whereby while allowing the said writ petition filed by the

respondent No.1 direction was issued to the appellant-RPSC as

well as respondent No.2-Mines and Geology Department to

consider the candidature of the respondent No.1 for the post of

Geologist in pursuance of the advertisement dated 02.05.2013 in

Physically Disabled category with Locomotive Disability, on the

[2023:RJ-JD:34512-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-369/2023]

post, which had already been reserved through the interim order

dated 11.12.2014 passed in that writ petition.

2. It is further observed by learned Single Judge that while

considering the candidature of the respondent No.1 all the

requisite procedure shall be adopted by the appellant-RPSC as

well as respondent No.2-Mines and Geology Department, which

includes interview and thereafter the respondent No.1 may be

given appointment on the post in question. It was clarified by the

learned Single Judge that such an appointment shall be

prospective in effect and the above referred exercise shall be

completed within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of certified copy of the order.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant-RPSC has submitted that

the appellant-RPSC has not changed the category of Physical

Disability with Locomotive Disability to Hearing Impairment but

the said change was made on the basis of the request made by

the respondent No.2-Mines and Geology Department. It is further

submitted that the learned Single Judge in Para Nos.4 and 5 of the

impugned order dated 24.01.2023 has observed that the

respondent No.2-Mines and Geology Department and the

appellant-RPSC gave appointment to Physical Disability with

Locomotive Disability category candidate in the next requirement.

4. It is contended by learned counsel for the appellant-RPSC

that as the appellant-RPSC is the recruiting agency, it has followed

the instructions given by the respondent No.2-Mines and Geology

Department in the case in hand and as such the appellant-RPSC

was not instrumental in not considering the candidature of the

[2023:RJ-JD:34512-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-369/2023]

respondent No.1, however, it was the respondent No.2-Mines and

Geology Department only which was responsible for changing of

category of the Physical Disability.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record, we are of the opinion that the

observation made by the learned Single Judge, regarding the

appellant-RPSC, may not be warranted but the same are not going

to affect the merit of the case, therefore, we don't find any

illegality in the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to

consider the candidature of the respondent No.1 as Physical

Disabled candidate with Locomotive Disability because in the next

requirement the respondent No.2-Mines and Geology Department

itself gave appointment to the Physical Disabled person with

Locomotive Disability.

6. In view of the above, we don't find any merit in this special

appeal writ and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

7. Stay petition also stands dismissed.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Abhishek Kumar S.No.58

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)