Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 191 (RAJ)

Bhahwana Ram v. State of Rajasthan

2001-02-06

B.J.SHETHNA

body2001
JUDGMENT 1. - By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed that the respondent No. 2-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner in pursuance of the advertisement at Annex. 7 and if he is found suitable, then he may be given appointment as Lecturer in Hindi. 2. The petitioner is M.A. in Hindi. He has qualified National Eligibility Test (NET) in 1996 held by the University Grants Commissioner (UGC). Thus, according to him, he was eligible for being considered for appointment on the post of Lecturer. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. In pursuance of the advertisement at Annex. 7, he applied for the post of Lecturer but he was told by a letter dated 30.6.1998 (Annex. 8) by RPSC that he is not qualified for the post of Lecturer as he was not having Second Division in B.A. which is must as per the advertisement (Annex. 7) itself. He, therefore, filed this petition. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta submitted that while issuing notice on the main petition to the other side, the learned Single Judge on a stay petition passed an interim order on 14.8.1998 and directed the respondents to provisionally allow him to appear in the interview/written test which may be held by the RPSC in pursuance to the advertisement at Annex. 7. However, the result of the written test/interview was not ordered to be declared without permission of this Court. He, therefore, submitted that under the interim orders of the Court, the petitioner was interviewed by the RPSC, therefore, his result may now be declared. This was vehemently objected by learned counsel Mr. Singhvi for the State and Mr. Vaishnav for the RPSC. 4. The question regarding issuing direction to the respondents of declaring the result of the petitioner would arise only if the petitioner succeeds in this petition otherwise not. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Mehta for the petitioner submitted that though there is a specific condition in the advertisement (Annex. 7) itself which provides that one should the at least B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. with second division but this Court has always got powers of directing the respondents to have relaxation in such type of conditions. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and Ors. 7) itself which provides that one should the at least B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. with second division but this Court has always got powers of directing the respondents to have relaxation in such type of conditions. He placed reliance on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of University of Delhi v. Raj Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1995 SC page 336 and submitted that this Court can also relax such conditions in the case of the petitioner. 6. I have carefully gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raj Singh's case (supra) and I am of the opinion that the same has no application whatsoever on the facts of this case, therefore, I have refrained myself from dealing with the same in extentio. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents have rightly submitted that without challenging the advertisement at Annex. 7, the petitioner cannot ask for any relief in his favour. It was rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that if this Court relax the condition mentioned in the advertisement Annex. 7 and direct them to consider his case, though he is B.A. with third division, then those other students, who are third division in B.A./B.Sc./B.Com. and not applied because of that condition would also be deprived of such benefit. They submitted that merely because the petitioner has filed this petition and under the interim order of this Court, he was interviewed by the RPSC would not be a ground for this Court to pass any such order. There is a lot of substance in the submission raised by learned counsel for the respondents. 8. It may be stated that when the person is to be appointed on the post of Lecturer, he should be a person with par excellence. The best persons having first or second division should be considered and not with third division. 9. It was tried to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Mehta that the post of Lecturer (Hindi) is to be filled in and the record of the petitioner was outstanding in Hindi, therefore, merely because he was having third division in B.A. would be of no consequence. 10. 9. It was tried to be submitted by learned counsel Mr. Mehta that the post of Lecturer (Hindi) is to be filled in and the record of the petitioner was outstanding in Hindi, therefore, merely because he was having third division in B.A. would be of no consequence. 10. This submission cannot be accepted for the simple reason that when there is a specific condition in the advertisement and the same is not to be found unreasonable, then this Court cannot issue any direction in favour of the petitioner only because he is having good record in Hindi. 11. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merits in this petition. Accordingly it fails and is dismissed.Stay petition is also dismissed. Interim relief granted earlier stands vacated forthwith.Petition dismissed. *******