Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Pramod vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 19 September, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:30426]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13165/2020
Pramod S/o Late Shri Omprakash, Aged About 33 Years, R/o A-
3, Hanuman Nagar, 5-E Chhoti, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar, At Present Working As School Lecturer,
Government Sr. Secondary School, Sanghar, Tehsil Suratgarh,
District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, College
Education, Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. Joint Director (HRD), Commissionerate, College
Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commissioners, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
4. Hema Ram Tirdiya S/o Shri Sharvan Ram Tirdiya, R/o
Ward No. 20, Bheruji Ka Bas, VPO Kuchera, Tehsil And
District Nagaur.
5. Bhagat Singh S/o Shri Fatehram, R/o Village Hulyana,
Post Tikri, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh Khosa for Mr. H.S.
Sidhu
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Himanshu Shrimali
Mr. Harish Jangid
Mr. Rajesh Punia
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
19/09/2023
1. Mr. Shrimali, learned counsel for the respondent-State
submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition has
been set at rest against the petitioner by the Jaipur Bench of this
Court vide judgment dated 06.12.2022, rendered in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.13821/2020 : Sumit Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors.
[2023:RJ-JD:30426] (2 of 3) [CW-13165/2020]
2. Mr. Pradeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner is not
in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.
3. In the case of Sumit Sharma (supra), the Jaipur Bench of
this Court has held thus:-
"This Court finds that the Apex Court in the case
of Vikas Sankhla & Ors. (supra), has considered the
issue, as whether, relaxation in minimum eligibility
to pass some test (TET) will amount to concession
in the recruitment process. The passing of any
examination has been treated as an eligibility
condition of appointment and if necessary
qualification is not available with a candidate then
such candidate is not eligible to be considered for
appointment. The Apex Court has further found that
when the method of appointment is altogether
different and merit is to be prepared on the basis of
marks obtained under different heads, then
concession is not given in the recruitment process
on the basis of relaxation of passing the test.
This Court finds that in the present case,
clearing/passing of NET/SLET/SET, is a condition of
eligibility for appointment as Assistant Professor
and without having such qualification, a person is
not eligible for appointment, however, the method
of appointment of Assistant Professor and the basis
of preparation of merit is altogether different and as
such, it cannot be inferred that only by getting
relaxation, while clearing the NET/SLET/SET, a
person from reserved category will always remain
as a candidate of reserved category and even if, he
secures his merit position on the basis of his
performance in the selection process and he secures
higher marks or cut off marks equal to the
[2023:RJ-JD:30426] (3 of 3) [CW-13165/2020]
unreserved category candidate, then still he will be
considered for reserved category.
This Court is also constrained to observe that
the present writ petition has been filed without any
cause of action accruing to the petitioners and only
on the basis of availability of certain details in
respect of candidates, who were selected in earlier
year, the same would not mean that the petitioners,
even at the stage of issuing advertisement, can file
the writ petition.
This Court further finds that if a candidate
whose right is infringed by any arbitrary action of
the State, definitely, he can raise a grievance by
way of filing a writ petition. However, only on
account of gathering certain information in respect
of previous recruitment and without waiting for the
outcome of the recruitment, filing of such writ
petition is not approved by this Court and same is
treated frivolous taking toll of Court's precious time.
This Court, therefore, finds that the present writ
petition lacks merit and the same is accordingly
dismissed. The interim order dated 26.11.2020
passed by this Court, also stands vacated.
All the applications, if any, stand disposed of."
4. Following the judgment in the case of Sumit Sharma (supra),
the present writ petition is dismissed.
5. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
77-Ramesh/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
