Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2133 (RAJ)

Hansraj v. State of Rajasthan

2005-08-11

GOVIND MATHUR

body2005
Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-The District Establishment Committee, Zile Parishad, Sriganganager under an advertisement No. 2/1996 dated 18.09.1996 invited applications for eligible candidates for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III against then existing 100 (approximate) vacancies. 2. According to Clause 4 of the advertisement No. 2/1996, the minimum age prescribed for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III was 18 years and maximum age was of 33 years as on 01.01.1997. The Government of Rajasthan by an order dated 27.03.1997 allowed relaxation of two years in the maximum age limit to the persons belonging to Other Backward Classes. While granting relaxation under the order dated 27.03.1997, it was made clear that wherever the advertisement has already been issued but the selections have not taken place, an opportunity shall be given to the candidates of Other Backward Classes to apply for appointment by publishing a public notice of 15 days. 3. No notification/notice with regard to age relaxation was published by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar. However, the petitioner in 26.08.1997, submitted an application to the secretary, District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad to consider his candidature for the purpose of appointment as Teacher Gr. III pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.09.1996 by treating him eligible within the extended age limit. 4. One Shri Sahib Ram, person similarly situated to the petitioner also submitted an application of same nature to the respondent District Establishment Committee. The Secretary, District Establishment Committee by a communication dated 07.01.1998 sought necessary guidance from the Director-cum-Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Jaipur with regard to extension of relaxation in favour of the petitioner and Shri Sahib Ram, but no such relaxation was extended by the District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar. In such circumstances, Shri Sahib Ram preferred a writ petition before this Court and the same was registered as SBCWP No. 2543/1997. In the said writ petition, Shri Sahib Ram sought a direction for respondent District Establishment Committee to consider his case for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. The respondents ultimately considered the candidature of aforesaid Sahib Ram and appointed him as Teacher Gr. III. In the said writ petition, Shri Sahib Ram sought a direction for respondent District Establishment Committee to consider his case for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. The respondents ultimately considered the candidature of aforesaid Sahib Ram and appointed him as Teacher Gr. III. The Counsel for Shri Sahib Ram in SBCWP No. 2543/1997 on 13.04.1998 made a statement before Court that after consideration by the respondents for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. Shri Sahib Ram secured a position in merit consequence of such selection would follow. In view of the statement given by the Counsel, the writ petition preferred by aforesaid Sahib Ram was disposed of by this Court on 13.01.1998 itself . 5. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner in the instant petition is that the petitioner and Shri Sahib Ram both stood on same pedestal, therefore, whatever relief has been granted to Shri Sahib Ram by the respondents is required to be given to him to maintain parity in the similarly situated persons. 6. From perusal of the communication dated 07.01.1998 (Annexure-10) it is apparent that the Secretary, District Establishment Committee, Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar sought requisite guidance from the Deputy Director-cum-Special Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Jaipur with regard to grant of age relaxation and also to consider the candidature for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III. It appears that the respondents have considered the candidature of Sahib Ram and accorded appointment to him but the same treatment has not been made with the petitioner. The Counsel for the respondents Zila Parishad is not in a position to say anything about the reason for different treatment made amongst the similarly situated persons namely Sahib Ram and the petitioner. The facts available on record establishes it that the case of the petitioner is exactly similar to the case of Sahib Ram to whom the respondents have selected and appointed to the post of Teacher Gr. III. The non-consideration of the petitioner in these circumstances, is discriminatory as such in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is entitled to have the same treatment by the respondents as is made with Shri Sahib Ram. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. III. The non-consideration of the petitioner in these circumstances, is discriminatory as such in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is entitled to have the same treatment by the respondents as is made with Shri Sahib Ram. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent Zila Parishad, Sriganganagar is directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. III and in the event he is found suitable and if any person having less merit than the petitioner is employed, the respondents shall given appointment to the petitioner as Teacher Gr. III. 8. No order as to costs