Surya Kant Bairwa S/O Bhagwan ... vs Rajasthan High Court ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 5283 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:25112-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8643/2023

1.       Surya Kant Bairwa S/o Bhagwan Sahay Bairwa, Aged
         About 30 Years, R/o P. No. D-57 Near Seth Sohan Lal Park
         Indra Colony Agra Road, Dausa Rajasthan
2.       Mayur Singh Yadav S/o Ramawtar Yadav, Aged About 30
         Years, R/o Dhani Manyawali Post Sirohi Tehsil Neem Ka
         Thana, Sikar Rajasthan
3.       Monika D/o Rawant Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
         Rajputo Ka Mohalla Alay, Nagaur Rajasthan
4.       Uday Singh Sisodiya S/o Gordhan Singh Sisodiya, Aged
         About 26 Years, R/o Karshi Mandi Ke Samne Kalyanpura
         Bassi, Jaipur, Rajasthan
5.       Ram Lal S/o Ram Prakash, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
         Basni Seja, The. Merta City, Nagaur Rajasthan
6.       Puneet Kumar Sharma S/o Susheel Kumar Sharma, Aged
         About 29 Years, R/o Karamchari Colony C Scheme
         Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan
7.       Praveen Kumar S/o Ram Niwas Gadhwal, Aged About 24
         Years, R/o Ward No 01 Dudi Nagar Bhorki Gudhagourji,
         Jhunjhunu Rajasthan
8.       Balesh Kanwar D/o Phoolji Bana, Aged About 36 Years,
         R/o Ward No. 7 Shriramnagar Phulera, Jaipur Rajasthan
9.       Gori Shankar Chejara S/o Vinod Chejara, Aged About 33
         Years, R/o Near Kedia Guest House Ward No 13 Chirawa,
         Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan
10.      Rahul Khandelwal S/o Trilok Khandelwal, Aged About 25
         Years, R/o Teliyo Ki Gali Takhta Tonk, Rajasthan
11.      Gajanand Sharma S/o Deep Chand Sharma, Aged About
         29 Years, R/o Village Leswa Ka Guwara Post Ajabgarh
         The. Thanagazi, Dist. Alwar Rajasthan
12.      Jitendra Bhaskar D/o Balveer Singh, Aged About 28
         Years, R/o Village Dhindwa Athuna Post Bhindwa Aguna
         The. Surajgarh, Dist. Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan
13.      Anjali Sharma D/o Roop Narayan Sharma, Aged About 25
         Years, R/o Major Ka Mohalla Ward No. 5 Harsoli, Jaipur
         Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Petitioners

                        (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 08:21:32 PM)
 [2023:RJ-JP:25112-DB]                   (2 of 4)                        [CW-8643/2023]


                                       Versus
1.       Rajasthan       High      Court,       Jodhpur         Through    Registrar
         General.
2.       The   Registrar         (Examination),         Rajasthan      High   Court,
         Jodhpur.
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Jakhar, Advocate with Mr. Ashish Nagarwal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

Judgment / Order

26/09/2023

1. Heard.

2. Petitioners, by way of this writ petition, have challenged the

action of the respondents in not including them in Open/General

category list though the marks obtained by them in the written

examination are higher than the cut off marks provided for

Open/General category.

3. Identical issue has already been dealt with by this Court in

the case of Rajat Yadav & Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court,

Jodhpur & Another (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564/2023

and batch of petitions) and vide order dated 18.09.2023, the

aforesaid writ petitions were disposed off holding that non-

inclusion of reserved category candidates, who have obtained

more marks than Open/General Category candidates in the written

examination are entitled to be considered for inclusion in the merit

[2023:RJ-JP:25112-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-8643/2023]

list on the basis of merit. In the aforesaid cases, following

directions have been issued:

"(A) Respondents shall undertake an exercise of revision of category wise list by including in the Open/General category list, those candidates of reserve category, who have secured more marks in the written examination provided they have not taken or availed of any special benefit which may dis-entitle them from being considered against Open/General category post.

(B) After drawing the Open/General category list, the list of respective reserve category shall be drawn up.

(C) If, as a result of aforesaid exercise, it is found that the petitioners herein have been accommodated either in the Open/General category list or there respective reserve category list then:

(i) If they have already been allowed to provisionally appear in the Typewriting Test on Computer, subject to they having secured minimum qualifying marks in Typewriting Test, their aggregate marks obtained in the written examination and Typewriting Test shall be drawn up.

(ii) Those, who have not been allowed to provisionally appear in the Typewriting Test, they will be entitled to appear in the Typewriting Test and for this purpose, the respondents shall hold Typewriting Test on Computer for such candidates, subject to they having obtained minimum qualifying marks in the Typewriting Test, their aggregate marks obtained in written examination and Typewriting Test shall also be drawn up.

(D) The merit list in the Open/General category and the respective reserve category shall be re- worked. If the petitioners herein are included either in the Open/General category list on the basis of their merit, they shall be offered appointment against posts in General/Open category, subject to the condition that they are fulfilling all other requirements. Similarly, those petitioners, who have been able to secure a place in the merit list of their respective reserve category would be offered appointment against

[2023:RJ-JP:25112-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-8643/2023]

posts in their respective reserved category, subject to fulfilling all other conditions.

(E) It goes without saying that while undertaking revision of the list, provisions contained in (i) to

(v) under Section B of Clause 15 of the advertisement shall have to be followed.

(F) If no vacant posts are available, less meritorious candidates, who have been appointed in Open category or reserve category, as the case may be, are required to be terminated."

4. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute that

this writ petition also raises identical issue.

5. This writ petition is, therefore, disposed off in terms of order

dated 18.09.2023 passed by this Court in the case of Rajat

Yadav & Others Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur &

Another (supra) with the direction that while undertaking the

exercise of reworking of merit list, the petitioners' case shall also

be considered provided that the petitioners have not taken or

availed of any special benefit/relaxation which would otherwise

disentitle them from being included in Open/General category list.

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J

Mohita /435

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)