Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Harendra Singh vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ... on 24 May, 2024
[2024:RJ-JD:23674]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7889/2024
Harendra Singh S/o Sunder Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Vpo
Awar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary
Agriculture Management Institute Building Durgapur
Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Elementary Education Bikaner, Rajasthan.
3. The District Education Officer, Rajsamand.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Rajsamand.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.S. Rathore
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Judgment (Oral)
24/05/2024
1. Grievance of the petitioner, inter alia, stems out of an order
dated 05.10.2023, vide which, allegedly candidates lesser
meritorious than the petitioner have been given appointment.
Whereas, petitioner claims that despite being successful and even
after he provided all the requisite documents, he has not been
given appointment.
2. Relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are that the
respondent/RSEB issued an advertisement on 16.12.2022 for the
post of Teacher Gr.-III, Level-I (Special Education). Petitioner
being eligible applied for the same in Non TSP OBC category
through online mode. Thereafter petitioner participated in the
[2024:RJ-JD:23674] (2 of 3) [CW-7889/2024]
written examination and being successful called for documents
verification.
2.1. After documents verification, respondents issued final
selection list, wherein, petitioner's name was shown. Respondents
issued the district allotment list, wherein, petitioner's name was
shown at S.No.9. Petitioner gave his preference to Upper Primary
School, Tapola, Deogarh.
2.3. On 05.10.2023 when respondent No.4 issued the
appointment orders, lesser meritorious candidates than the
petitioner were appointed and allotted the districts but not the
petitioner. He then approached the respondents. He was informed
that his certificate by Rehabilitation Council of India was not
tagged with the documents. At the time of submitting online
documents, as well as, at the time of document verification,
petitioner claims to have supplied the RCA certificate. Hence, this
petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop of the factual narrative, which is
duly sworn by way of an accompanied affidavit, it does prima facie
appear to be a case where petitioner had indeed supplied all the
requisite information, particularly the registration certificate from
RCA, which is also appended alongwith the petition herewith. On
a Court query, learned counsel representing the petitioner informs
that the RCA certificate was duly appended prior to the cut off
date alongwith the application form through online mode, followed
by physically showing the said document at the time of document
verification. He points out that, at no stage, petitioner was
informed that his registration certificate had any discrepancy of
any kind so as to enable him to remove the anomaly.
[2024:RJ-JD:23674] (3 of 3) [CW-7889/2024]
4. Notwithstanding, neither any formal order has been passed
rejecting his said certificate nor has the petitioner issued the
appointment letter despite his being successful, while his
counterparts have been appointed and are serving on the posts in
question.
5. In the aforesaid peculiar premise, given the nature of order,
which I propose to pass formal notice to respondents is being
dispensed with as no prejudice would be caused to them.
6. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the
respondents to forthwith carry out the verification upon the
petitioner approaching them with web print of the instant order
and, in case his RCA certificate is found to be in order, he shall be
issued appointment letter alongwith all the notional benefits and
seniority with effect from the same date as his counterparts were
appointed. In case, for some reasons, the verification cannot be
carried out within a period of 30 days, petitioner shall be given
provisional appointment, subject to the outcome of the pending
inquiry to be made by the respondents.
7. It is made clear that provisional appointment shall not confer
any equity on the petitioner so as to claim any special benefit
subsequently in case his document, as aforesaid, is not found to
be valid.
(ARUN MONGA),J
4-AK Chouhan/-
Whether fit for reporting : Yes/No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
