Rakesh Kumar Ameta vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7575 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:31184]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16721/2021

Rakesh Kumar Ameta S/o Jagdish Chandra Ameta, Aged About 29 Years, Utthen Kalan, Rayta, Begun, Chittorgarh Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Jaipur, Through Secretary Rajasthan Staff Selection Board Jaipur, Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur 302018

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ripudaman Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Punia

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

21/09/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed

for a direction to the respondent - Board to recommend his name

for the post of Junior Engineer (Electrical/Diploma) pursuant to

Advertisement dated 03.03.2020.

2. The petitioner claims to be possessing requisite qualification,

applied for the above mentioned post in Specially abled category,

as he was having locomotor disability/Cerebral Palsy against the

post reserved for Physically Handicapped category candidates.

3. The terms of the Advertisement clearly reserves such post

for physically handicapped candidates.

4. The petitioner's contention is that no physically handicapped

category candidate has been given appointment and therefore, he

being physically handicapped candidate should be offered

appointment, as he had cleared the examination.

[2023:RJ-JD:31184] (2 of 3) [CW-16721/2021]

5. Mr. Ripudaman Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the judgment of co-ordinate Bench of this Court

passed in bunch of writ petitions, lead case being Mohammed

Farhan vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

11382/2017 decided on 08.01.2018 and submitted that the

petitioner is entitled for the grant of relief in the light of such

judgment.

6. Mr. Rajesh Punia, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent Board argued that the post was earmarked for the

category of hearing impaired persons, whereas the petitioner,

though is a physically handicapped person, but his disability is in

his legs or he is having locomotor disability, whereas, the post was

meant for Hearing Impaired category candidate.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that as per the

terms of the Advertisement and Rules issued by the State

Government in this regard, if a seat has been earmarked for a

particular category of disability, the same has to be filled in by

candidate of such category or disability and in case of non-

availability of suitable candidate in the advertised category, the

same is required to be carried forward and it is only in the

subsequent recruitment if the candidate of such category is not

found, the same can be filled in by a person of other disability. He,

thus, argued that the petitioner's prayer that in absence of

suitable candidate of locomotor disability, petitioner be offered

appointment, cannot be granted.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

9. Indisputably, the post in question was reserved for physically

handicapped category candidates with hearing impairment,

[2023:RJ-JD:31184] (3 of 3) [CW-16721/2021]

whereas, the petitioner is having locomotor disability. Since no

suitable candidate in the notified category was available, the

petitioner cannot claim his right of consideration simply because

the post remained unfilled.

10. So far as the judgment in the case of Mohammed Farhan

(supra) is concerned, the facts and adjudication made therein

clearly shows that the Court has given clear direction to consider

such petitioner's candidature if any seat remained unfilled in the

previous recruitment i.e. in year 2013, as against this, in the

present case, the petitioner is staking his claim in the unfilled

seats for the present recruitment. The facts of the case are clearly

distinguishable from the case at hands and hence, the judgment in

the case of Mohammed Farhan (supra) does not help the cause of

the petitioner.

11. As per terms of the Advertisement and as per Rules

applicable, in the event of non-availability of suitable candidate,

the reservation is to be carried forward for next recruitment and it

is only in the next recruitment, the post can be filled in by persons

with other disability, in the post remains unfilled.

12. In view of above settled legal position, this Court does not

find any merit and substance in the present writ petition. The

same is dismissed.

13. Stay application also stands dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 103-Mak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)