Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Astha Gaur vs State Of Raj. And Anr. ... on 13 January, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:2027]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1304/2013
Astha Gaur D/o Shri KN Sharma, aged about 29 years, R/o
Ganpati Kripa, Somnath Nagar, Dausa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department
of Home Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Secretary Rajasthan, Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
4. Suman Dangi / Shri Bhagirath Singh C/o Inspector
General of Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manvendra Singh.
Ms. Saumya Choudhary.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Raj Singh Bhati for
Mr. Ritu Raj Singh Rathore, AAG.
Mr. C.R. Choudhary.
Mr. Shailendra Kumar.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
13/01/2025
1. Having remained partly successful in the selection process
pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2007 (Annex.1), the
petitioner (working as Platoon Commander) herein seeks
appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector (instead of Platoon
Commander) in general category seeking parity with her similarly
situated counter-parts, who have been given appointment by
virtue of this Court judgment dated 20.09.2011 in SBCWP
No.3705/2009.
2. Briefly speaking relevant facts are that the respondents
advertised 151 posts for Sub-Inspector (A.P.), 87 posts for Platoon
Commander (Sub-Inspector R.A.C.), and 6 posts for Sub-
Inspector (M.B.C.). Among these, 22 posts in the Sub-Inspector
[2025:RJ-JD:2027] (2 of 6) [CW-1304/2013]
(A.P.) cadre, 13 posts in the Platoon Commander (Sub-Inspector
R.A.C.) cadre, and 1 post in the Sub-Inspector (M.B.C.) cadre
were reserved for OBC candidates. In response to this
advertisement, the petitioner applied for the position and took the
examination. In the final result her total score was reduced by 5
marks due to the scaling process.
2.1. However, vide a judgment dated 20.9.2011 in SBCWP No.
3705/2009 (Ramnarayan Bhanwariya Vs. State of Rajasthan), this
Court struck down the scaling formula adopted by the
respondents, finding it to be unjust. Subsequently, the
respondents issued a communication to the petitioner on
13.7.2012, calling her for a medical examination. She pleads that
despite successfully clearing all stages of the selection process,
the respondents have yet to offer her appointment on the post.
Hence, this petition.
3. The stand taken by the respondents in their reply inter alia is
that the last cut-off marks for general (Female) were 263,
whereas, according to the petitioner's own assertion, she secured
only 235 marks. According to her marksheet, the petitioner
secured 85 marks in Hindi, but the scaled marks were mentioned
as 80, thus reducing her aggregate score by 5 marks due to
scaling.
3.1. That SBCWP No. 3705/2009 (Ramnarayan Bhanwariya Vs.
State of Rajasthan) along with four other identical writ petitions
were all allowed on 20.09.2011 by this Court. In compliance with
the judgment, RPSC issued an amended merit list, and in that
process, the petitioner was also called to appear for a medical
examination. However, the letter clearly mentioned that calling for
[2025:RJ-JD:2027] (3 of 6) [CW-1304/2013]
the medical examination and verification of character, and being
found fit, would not necessarily mean the issuance of the
appointment order.
3.2. Regarding the judgment dated 24.07.2012 in SBCWP No.
6350/2012, it is based on the observations made in the judgment
dated 20.09.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009. The relief granted
was specifically in persona and not in rem. Hence petition
deserves to be dismissed.
4. In response, the stand taken by the petitioner in her
rejoinder is that the petitioner's original merit number was 666
(Roll No. 220214), but after the judgment, her merit improved to
580 in the amended list issued on 21.02.2012 (Annexure-R/R/1).
Other candidates at numbers 581, 582, 586, 593, 604, 616, and
624 of merit list, placed below here, were appointed. On
23.04.2012 (Annexure-R/R/2), the respondents issued a list of 30
candidates for medical examination, with the petitioner ranked
27th. The respondents' assertion that they did not intend to call
the petitioner is thus misleading.
5. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
6. In sum and substance, apart from other arguments and
grounds raised in the petition, the petitioner's case primarily
hinges on two pivotal points:
(A) the assertion that respondent No.4, who obtained
lesser marks than the petitioner, was still given the benefit of
appointment in the general category; and
(B) there are certain other candidates, as reflected in the
office order dated 23.04.2012 (Annex.RR/3), who had
[2025:RJ-JD:2027] (4 of 6) [CW-1304/2013]
obtained lesser marks than the petitioner but were still given
the benefit of appointment in the general category.
7. First and foremost, addressing the second part of the
argument, it is clear that an affidavit has been sworn on oath by
the competent officials, stating that the cut-off marks in the
general category for the post of Sub-Inspector were 263, whereas
the petitioner secured much less i.e. 235 marks.
8. Furthermore, it is evident that while the petitioner originally
secured 85 marks in Hindi, subsequently, due to the scaling
process, which was applied uniformly to all candidates, her marks
were reduced to her detriment from 85 to 80, thus placing her
even lower in merit than initially, when the final list was prepared
based on her original marks in Hindi.
9. Even if, for the sake of argument, it is assumed that the
petitioner was wrongly downgraded in the merit list by reducing
her marks in Hindi, I am of the view that the petitioner would still
not benefit in any way to secure the appointment on the post of
Sub-Inspector, as against the Platoon Commander position on
which she is currently working. Adding 5 marks to her aggregate
would only increase her total to 240 instead of 235, which is still
well below the benchmark of 263.
10. Returning to the first point, as noted above, at the very
outset, it appears that the petitioner has filed the writ petition
based on the office order dated 23.04.2012, which, in fact, was
never implemented. Subsequently, vide an office order dated
03.07.2012, the operation and effect of the said order was stayed.
11. The subsequent order dated 03.07.2012 is neither under
challenge before this Court nor, for that matter, does the petitioner
[2025:RJ-JD:2027] (5 of 6) [CW-1304/2013]
appear to be aggrieved by it, as no steps were taken to challenge
the same in either any collateral proceedings or in the instant one.
12. Moreover, upon a Court query, it transpires that respondent
No.4 was actually appointed in the OBC category. Same is borne
out from her appointment letter dated 19.08.2011, a copy of
which tendered during the hearing has been taken on record.
13. On a Court query, learned counsel for the respondents states
that he is under instructions to state at the bar that this is the
only appointment letter issued, pursuant to which respondent
No.4 was appointed in service, and reliance on the order dated
23.04.2012 is entirely misplaced.
14. Therefore, the petitioner was seemingly under the
impression that respondent No.4 was appointed in the general
category despite having secured lesser marks than the petitioner.
Accordingly, the petitioner is wrongly claiming entitlement to
similar treatment based on her higher merit. She has to compete
in her own category. The case in hand being entirely otherwise,
there are no grounds to interfere.
15. In the parting, I may hasten to add that, in an additional
affidavit filed by the petitioner, reliance has been placed on a list
dated 23.04.2012 (Annex.12 at Page 104 of the petition) of 30
candidates, wherein the petitioner's name was also included.
Three candidates from the list were appointed and are stated to
have obtained lesser marks than the petitioner, the petitioner
thus alleges hostile discrimination.
16. It turns out that the aforesaid appointments were made
pursuant to an order passed by this Court in SBCWP
No.3705/2009, and these are to be treated in personam and not
[2025:RJ-JD:2027] (6 of 6) [CW-1304/2013]
in rem, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the
respondents.
17. Once again, reverting to the performance of the petitioner,
marks obtained by her are 235, and even if the benefit of the
judgment dated 20.09.2011 rendered in Raman Narayan
Bhanwreya Vs. State and Anr.: SBCWP No.3705/2009 is
extended to the petitioner, pursuant to which three candidates
were appointed, the petitioner would still need to outperform the
selected candidates. At best, the petitioner would be entitled to 5
additional marks if the scaling of marks were to be set aside in her
case. This would raise her aggregate to 240 marks. However, she
still would not qualify on the merit list.
18. As an upshot, there are no grounds to interfere.
19. Dismissed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
157-Sumit/-
Whether Fit for Reporting: Yes / No
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
