Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1435 (RAJ)

Dhanpat Raj v. State of Rajasthan

2003-10-20

H.R.PANWAR

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - By the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing the impugned order dated 13.11.1998 (Annex.3) and directing respondents to appoint the petitioner in the cadre of Rajasthan Administrative Service. 2. In pursuance to the advertisement issued by the respondent No. 3, 5 petitioner applied and appeared in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Combined Competitive) Examination, 1995-96 as a member of Other Backward Class (OBC) and gave his first preference to R.A.S. and second preference to R.P.S. The total number of vacancies reserved for OBC candidates were six in number. Petitioner's grievance is that though he stands at merit No. 48 and respondent No. 4 stands at merit No. 71, but respondent No. 4 has been given appointment in RAS cadre whereas he has been given appointment in RPS cadre. He challenges the selection of respondent No. 4 in RAS cadre on the ground that despite the fact that respondent No. 4 was holding the post of Gazetted Officer but still he has been selected in RAS cadre by giving the benefits of OBC and Non-gazetted employee. Hence this writ petition. 3. Refuting the averments made in the writ petition and justifying selection of respondent No. 4 in RAS cadre, separate replies have been filed by the respondents. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the record reveals that the advertisement (Annex.1) was issued on 23.4.1996 and on this date, respondent No. 4 was holding the post of Accountant in the Rajasthan Accounts Subordinate Service, which is a non-gazetted post. Respondent No. 4 is also a member of Other Backward Class and he applied for the post in question as a non-gazetted employee. As per the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Competitive Examination) Rules, 1962 (for short, 'the Rules, 1962'), 21% vacancies are reserved for OBC candidates and 7% for non-gazetted employees. The preliminary examination was conducted in October, 1996 and the main examination was conducted in the month of the December, 1997. Respondent No. 4 was selected in Rajasthan Cooperative Service in the year 1998 and joined as the Assistant Registrar (gazetted post) on 12.1.1998. The respondents have come with the specific stand that the selection of the respondent No. 4 in the RAS cadre was against the vacancies reserved for non-gazetted employees. Respondent No. 4 was selected in Rajasthan Cooperative Service in the year 1998 and joined as the Assistant Registrar (gazetted post) on 12.1.1998. The respondents have come with the specific stand that the selection of the respondent No. 4 in the RAS cadre was against the vacancies reserved for non-gazetted employees. Petitioner has not filed rejoinder- affidavit rebutting this specific stand taken by the respondents. Thus, there is no illegality, irregularity or perversity in selecting the respondent No. 4 in RAS cadre and placing the petitioner in RPS cadre. 6. More so, it is settled proposition of law that the eligibility is to be considered from the date of advertisement. There is no dispute that on the relevant date, the respondent No. 4 was a non-gazetted employee. There is no illegality in selecting the respondent No. 4 in RAS cadre by applying the policy of reservation and considering his case as a non-gazetted employee as on the crucial date, respondent No. 4 was holding the post of Accountant which is a non-gazetted post. 7. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed. The stay petition also stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******