Inder Chand Sihag vs State Of Raj And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:20813)
2024 Latest Caselaw 3396 Raj/2

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 3396 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 2 May, 2024

Rajasthan High Court

Inder Chand Sihag vs State Of Raj And Ors (2024:Rj-Jp:20813) on 2 May, 2024

Author: Sameer Jain

Bench: Sameer Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:20813]                     (1 of 4)                        [CW-6678/2008]


        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6678/2008

Inder Chand Sihag, S/o Heeralal Sihag, aged 45 years, R/o
Nethawa, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar.
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Primary and Upper
Primary School Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.    Rajasthan      Public       Service     Commission,          Ajmer   through
Secretary.
3. Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                   ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)             :    Mr. Tanmay Dhand
For Respondent(s)             :    Mr. Chandra Shekhar for
                                   Mr. Bharat Saini, G.C.
                                   Mr. Imran Khan, AGC



                HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

                                       Order

02/05/2024

1. The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-

"Hence prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to direct the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned condition and the order dated 8.5.08 (Annex.3) issued by the Respondent No.2 and further pleased to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Primary & Upper Primary School Teacher (Teacher Grade III) under the category of Disabled Persons with all consequential benefits;

Any other order or relief as deemed just and proper by the Hon'ble Court in the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

[2024:RJ-JP:20813] (2 of 4) [CW-6678/2008]

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

petitioner is a physically disabled person and as per the

'Permanent Disability Certificate' issued by the Medical Officer

dated 25.06.1998, it is evident that the petitioner suffers from

40% permanent disability (Annexure-1). On 30.10.2006, the

Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter, RPSC) issued

an advertisement qua the post of Primary School Teacher, Grade-

III. The petitioner possessing all the requisite qualifications

applied for the said post under the category of 'disabled persons',

and was assigned the admit card by the respondents. The result

qua the said recruitment was declared on 16.03.2007 and the

petitioner's name was reflected in the provisional merit list. It was

further submitted that on 08.05.2008, RPSC issued a letter to the

petitioner for submission of 'Disability Certificate' in accordance

with the relevant rules i.e. Rajasthan Disabled Persons

Employment Rules, 2000, enforced on 20.11.2000. As per the

provisions of Rule 2 (l), the certificate should have been issued by

a 'Medical Board' consisting of three persons vouching for the said

disability.

3. In this regard, as the petitioner's certificate was purportedly

amiss of the said requirements, the petitioner was ousted from

joining on the concerned post. Aggrieved of the same, the

petitioner filed a notice for demand of justice. It was duly

mentioned in the said notice, that the petitioner has already

submitted the certificate issued by a competent authority, i.e.

Senior Specialist, Orthopedician of the competent Government

Hospital.

[2024:RJ-JP:20813] (3 of 4) [CW-6678/2008]

4. Furthermore, it was submitted that as per the provisions of

Persons with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights

and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the certificate submitted by the

petitioner was issued by the competent authority and was worth

consideration by the respondents. Moreover, qua the fact of delay,

it was averred by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the

petitioner had approached this Court on the earliest possible day,

hence, the petition should be considered. In this regard, learned

counsel placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court enunciated in Manoj Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.

reported in Civil Appeal No.2679/2024, wherein it was held

that when the proceedings are in rem and the prayer in the writ

petition is non-tenable due to the paucity of time, the

Constitutional Court cannot dismiss the writ proceedings, on the

ground of futility. In light of Manoj Kumar (Supra), it was

further submitted that the primary duty of the court is to override

the arbitrary action/ ultra vires act conducted.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted

that when the petition was filed, the petitioner was of 45 years of

age and as on the present date, has reached the age of

superannuation. Furthermore, with the efflux of time, the selection

process qua the said advertisement is over and no interim order/

protection was granted in favor of the petitioner. Hence, the lis in

question does not survive. It was further averred that for a

prolonged period of time, the file was inactive and no sincere

efforts were made by the petitioners to contest the matter. The

matter after issuance of notice(s), was considered in the Year

2017 and thereafter, is coming for hearing in the Year 2024.

[2024:RJ-JP:20813] (4 of 4) [CW-6678/2008]

Therefore, the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable in

the instant matter.

6. Heard and considered.

7. Considering the foregoing facts and circumstances and upon

perusal of the records, the following are observations, are

noteworthy:-

7.1 That as on date, the petitioner has already attained the

age of superannuation i.e. 60 years. Hence, reinstatement is not

possible.

7.2 That in the case at hand, the requirement qua the

furnishing of certificate entailed that the said certificate should be

undersigned by the 'Medical Board', as per the erstwhile rules

applicable at the said time. Therefore, the submission of 'Disability

Certificate' undersigned by Single Doctor is not worthy of

consideration, falling short of the prescribed requirement.

7.3 That at this belated stage, the lis in question does not

survive and with the efflux of time, the said selection process has

already attained finality.