Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 2173 (RAJ)

Rajshree Chorsia v. R. P. S. C.

2005-08-17

AJAY RASTOGI

body2005
Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.-By instant writ petition, petitioner raised grievance that posts of Lacturer (Beauty-culture) reserved for “Other Backward Class” (“OBC”) as notified in Advertisement dated 20.01.1997 (Annexure-2) be increased from 2 to 3 and to consider him for appointment. 2. Petitioner belongs to a caste under OBC. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (“RPSC”) (respondent No. 1) advertised posts of Lecturer (Beauty-Culture) alongwith other posts for appointment in Technical Education Directorate vide notification No. 7/1996-1997/ 20.01.1997 (Annexure-2). With reference thereto, petitioner being eligible applied for aforesaid post and participated in process of selection initiated by RPSC. Out of 12 posts advertised vide Notification dated 20.01.1997 (Annexure-2), six were available for General, two for Scheduled Caste and two for Scheduled Tribe and rest of two for OBC member. 3. After final selections were made by RPSC, petitioner found her name placed at S.No. 6 in reserved list, and before recommendations made by RPSC could be implemented by State Government, petitioner approached this Court by way of present petition with the grievance that she being a member of OBC is entitled to be considered as per roster against third vacancy, which ought to have been reserved for OBC and, therefore, very determination of vacancies of the post in question made by State Government as notified in advertisement dated 20.01.1997 (Annexure-2) is erroneous and her name duly placed at No. 3 being OBC member in select list is entitled for appointment against 3rd vacancy which ought to have been reserved by respondents for OBC candidate. 4. Shri R.P. Vijay, Counsel for petitioner has urged that State Government and so also RPSC were under obligation to reserve vacancies in terms of Circular dated 012.1996 (Annexure-4) but erroneous decision taken by the respondents, petitioner has been deprived despite being eligible for the post in question in seeking appointment against 3rd vacancy, to which she was selected by RPSC and placed at S.No 6 in over all merit in reserved category and at No. 3 in the category of OBC candidates. 5. 5. Respondents have filed reply to writ petition, inter-alia raising objection that petitioner participated in process of selection despite knowing fully well that there were only two vacancies reserved for OBC candidates and thereby took chance and it is only after she came to know that she has been selected and her name find place in the reserved list and can be considered for appointment if one more vacancy is made available in reserved category of OBC, she approached to this Court by way of present petition. Shri Kumawat, Counsel for respondent RPSC contended that once petitioner despite aware of having two reserved vacancies for OBC candidates, participated in whole process of selection, she is precluded from raising grievance against determination of vacancies which was made by State Government and advertised vide notification dated 20.01.1997 (Annexure-2). Counsel further urged that determination of vacancies is made in accordance with scheme of Service Rules & selected candidates have been appointed and reserve list has never acted upon at any later point of time by the respondents, as such no legal right of petitioner is being infringed in seeking appointment on the basis of her placement in the reserve list. 6. I have considered rival contentions of the parties and perused material on record. It is undisputed fact that from the date of advertisement till final selection process was over, petitioner despite knowing fully well that only two posts were made reserved for OBC candidates, participated in whole process of selection and only after selection process was over and made known to petitioner that she stood selected but her name find place at S.No. 6 in reserve list, and No. 3 of reserved category of OBC raised grievance of wrong determination of vacancies, which in my opinion cannot be said to be justified on her part, and once she participated in whole process of selection she cannot be allowed to raise such objection at later point of time for one or the other reason. So far as change of category from SC/ST to OBC of wrong determination of vacancies is concerned, in my opinion, objection raised by Counsel for petitioner is jejune. Vacancies are reserved and determined in accordance with the scheme of relevant service Rules. So far as change of category from SC/ST to OBC of wrong determination of vacancies is concerned, in my opinion, objection raised by Counsel for petitioner is jejune. Vacancies are reserved and determined in accordance with the scheme of relevant service Rules. In my opinion, once selection process stood final, raising grievance and questioning the process of recruitment at later stage after participation, is otherwise not required to be entertained in extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court. 7. Consequently, I find no merit in this petition, which is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.