Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1339 (RAJ)

Rajendra Bhana v. State

2014-07-04

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Rajendra Bhana inter alia with the prayer that the order dated 29.1.2014 by which the select list for appointment on the post of driver has been prepared by the Chief Conservator of Forest, Wildlife, Kota be quashed and set aside to the extent it does not treat the petitioner as a candidate of OBC and on that basis does not consider his case for appointment. 2. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that respondents advertised 12 posts of Drivers. Petitioner applied in response to that advertisement. The written test was conducted on 6.10.2013. The merit list was declared showing 39 successful candidates on 30.12.2013, in which name of petitioner was mentioned at S.No.31. The candidates were called for the trade test on 16/17.1.2014. It was at that time that the petitioner discovered that the e-mitra through whom he has submitted his application form has wrongly declared him as a general category candidate, whereas he belongs to OBC category. Petitioner produced the certificate showing his status to be that of OBC category before the respondents at the time of trade test. Even he has produced the same on record for perusal of this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court towards the check list produced by the respondents with reply at Annexure-R/3 in column no.7 of which it is clearly mentioned that when the petitioner appeared for trade test on 16.1.2014, he produced the certificate of OBC, despite that the respondents refused to consider him as OBC candidate. 3. Shri N.K. Bhatt, learned Additional Government for the respondent opposed the writ petition and submits that petitioner while submitting the on-line application form did not declare his status as OBC. In this connection, learned Additional Government Counsel invited attention of the Court towards the on-line application form Annexure-R/1 and submits that when petitioner himself filled in the form, therefore, he cannot be permitted to change his status in the midst of the process of selection as it affects the finalisation of the result of the other candidates. 4. In this connection, learned Additional Government Counsel invited attention of the Court towards the on-line application form Annexure-R/1 and submits that when petitioner himself filled in the form, therefore, he cannot be permitted to change his status in the midst of the process of selection as it affects the finalisation of the result of the other candidates. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that two facts, which are not disputed are that the application was submitted on-line and that the petitioner also submitted the OBC certificate at the time when he appeared for trade test i.e. before finalisation of the result. Petitioner is a candidate for appointment on Class-III post i.e. of Driver and therefore, he has to be believed when he stated that when he submitted the application form through e-mitra. Thus, it appears to be a bona fide lapse on his part. His status as OBC is otherwise not disputed. Petitioner submitted application before the finalisation of the process of selection when he appeared for the trade test. When the petitioner approached by filing the writ petition by order dated 19.2.2014, this Court required the respondents to treat the petitioner as OBC for the purpose of appointment. 5. In the totality of circumstances, there is no reason why the petitioner should not be considered as an OBC candidate for the purpose of appointment and on that basis grant him the appointment on the basis of his merit. 6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of petitioner for grant of appointment on the post of Driver treating him as OBC category candidate and if he is found to appear in the merit, grant such appointment to him. 7. Compliance of the judgement be made within three months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before the respondents.Writ Petition Allowed. *******