Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 849 (RAJ)

Pragya Saxena v. State of Rajasthan

1998-08-07

J.C.VERMA

body1998
Honble VERMA, J.–The reservation of 20% was prescribed for women candidates vide notification dated 22.1.97 issued by Rajasthan Government. The petitioner is aggrieved that for the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer as advertised by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short `RPSC) vide advertisement No. 6/96-97 dated 26.10.96 the reservation meant for women candidates have not been adhered to. Even though according to original advertiment dated 26.10.96. vacancies were advertised, but later on with a further corrigendum issued by RPSC No. 4/96-97 dated 28.1.97 (Ann.2) the vacancies were increased to 48. It is further submitted that in the same corrigendum it was mentioned that out of total posts, 20% posts will be reserved for women candidates. The posts of Assistant Agriculture Engineer are to be filled up by way of interview and no written test is provided. According to petitioner 10 posts out of 48 posts were to be reserved for women candidates and as per her information only 8 candidates had applied. The screening was made so far the male candidates were concerned. The schedule of examination was published to be held the examination on 21.9.97. It was provided in the schedule of examination that the women candidates belonging to Scheduled Casts. Women (General category) and OBC were exempted from the screening test, as per letter (Ann.3). However, the screening test was again reintroduced for the women candidates vide letter dated 28.11.97 (Ann.4). The petitioner appeared in the screening test on 21.12.97. She qualified the test and was called for interview vide letter dated 24.2.98 and she appeared for interview on 26.3.98. It is stated by the petitioner that instead of treating her to be considered for giving the benefit of reservation of women candidates, she had been treated a general candidate along with male candidates and has not been offered the appointment. It is submitted that a separate list of women candidates ought to have been prepared. She was informed vide letter dated 13.4.98 (Ann.6) that it was not possible for RPSC to select her. The prayer has been made by the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner against the vacancies of Assistant Agriculture Engineer meant for women candidates in terms of the notification dated 21.1.97 and consequently the letter dated 13.4.98 be quashed. (2). The RPSC has filed the written statement. The prayer has been made by the petitioner to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of petitioner against the vacancies of Assistant Agriculture Engineer meant for women candidates in terms of the notification dated 21.1.97 and consequently the letter dated 13.4.98 be quashed. (2). The RPSC has filed the written statement. It is admitted that as per corrigendum that last date for submission of application form was 24.2.97. It is also not denied that 20% posts were to be filled up out of women candidates and on the querry being asked by RPSC, the Government had informed that selection process is to be conducted keeping in view the 20% reservation for women candidates. It is stated that initially the women candidates were exempted from screening test. However, the RPSC has sought confirmation about reservation once againt and the Government had informed RPSC that because of the reason that the process of recruitment had started earlier to the order dated 21.1.97, therefore, no reservation is to be allowed for women. It is stated that the result of screening test was declared on 24.1.98 and 75 candidates from general (73 male + 1 female & 1 physically handicapped), 27 candidates from Scheduled Castes and 33 candidates from other Backward Classes (32 male + 1 female), total 135 candidates were declared succe- ssful. It is stated that they were called for interview and a list of 48 selected candidates was sent to Government on 2.4.98. (3). The only question which remain to be determined is as to whether the notification dated 22.1.97 providing reservation for women candidates was applicable to advertisement in question or not? Initially the advertisement (Ann.1) was issued on 26.10.96, then it was modified by way of corrigendum Dated 28.1.97 (Ann.2), whereby 48 vacancies of the post of Assistant Agriculture Engineer were advertised. In this very advertisement, it was mentioned at Sr. No.3 that 20% posts are reserved for women candidates. The last date for receipt of application form was 24.2.97. It is clear that at the time of issuance of corrigendum the notification dated 22.1.97 had come into being. The last date for receipt of application form was 24.2.97. As to how and under what circumstances the notification of reservation for women candidates issued on 22.1.97 can be said to be inapplicable in the present case. It is clear that at the time of issuance of corrigendum the notification dated 22.1.97 had come into being. The last date for receipt of application form was 24.2.97. As to how and under what circumstances the notification of reservation for women candidates issued on 22.1.97 can be said to be inapplicable in the present case. Even the first classification sought by RPSC from the Government was replied in affirmative to the effect that the reservation for women candidates is to be made applicable to the extent of 20%. There was hardly any occasion or necessity for reagitating the matter by RPSC and there was hardly any option for Government of Rajasthan to retract from the earlier stand. (4). It is also clear from the schedule (Ann.3) that no screening was provided for women candidates. If only 8 women candidates were available and no screen- ing test was to be held of women candidates and if the women candidates fulfil the eligibility qualification, the posts could be filled up straightway from women candidates out of the quota reserved for women candidates. However, even if screening test was also conducted by RPSC in that situation as well, it was incumbent upon RPSC to have prepared a list of selected candidates of women and offered appointment as per her merit, that have not been done, such action of the respondents cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The women were positively entitled to reservation as per notification dated 22.1.97 and if selection was to be made by RPSC it should have prepared a separate merit list for women candidates. This finding also finds support from a judgment in Umesh Chand & Ors. vs. State of Raj & Ors. (1) along with other writ petitions, wherein the counter arguments were not agreed to and it was observed as under: ``The next point raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that on the date of advertisement there was no reservation provided for women candidates and an amendment in the rules by providing reservation for the women candidates on 22.1.1997 cannot be made applicable to the advertisement in question. There is no merit in the submission of the petitioner in this regard. There is no merit in the submission of the petitioner in this regard. Admittedly, the last date for receipt of the application forms was March, 1997 and corrigendum in this regard was made much before the submission of the application forms for competing examination and the final result and the reservation had been provided by the Government in the rules itself. Even otherwise, ******************* (5). For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. The RPSC is directed to consider the case of petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy against the reservation meant for women candidates as per notification dated 22.1.97 and if the petitioner fulfils eligibility test/qualification, then her name shall be considered for appointment as per her merit. (6). The writ petition is allowed, as indicated above. No order as to costs.