Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1723 (RAJ)

Rakesh Kumar Gurjar v. State of Rajasthan

2014-10-28

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondent No.3 be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner on the post of Patwari as per his merit and other consequential - benefits be also granted to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Patwari pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondents on 7.3.2011 in District Sawai Madhopur. Originally, total 51 posts of Patwari were advertised for District Sawai Madhopur. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued by the Board of Revenue on 3.6.2011 by which the number of posts in District Sawai Madhopur were enhanced from 51 to 97. Out of those, one post was reserved for the SBC category and 20 posts were kept reserved for the OBC category candidates. 3. Learned counsel submitted that the State Government has issued an order dated 6th May, 2010 in partial modification of the earlier order dated 8th February, 2010 whereby, 1% reservation in recruitment and admissions shall be provided to the Special Backward Classes in addition shall be provided vide order dated 8th February, 2010. This reservation shall be given to the Special Backward Classes in addition to reservation available to them in Backward Classes. Only those SBC candidates, who do not come in merit among Backward Classes, shall get the benefit of this reservation. It is submitted that a candidate of SBC belonging to Gurjar community was selected at merit No.31 and another candidate at Merit No. 51. Both of whom were considered in General and OBC category. The petitioner stands at Merit No. 129, therefore, virtually he was at No.1 in the SBC category. Even then, he was not given appointment on the post of Patwari. The respondents had provided horizontal reservation of 12.5% to Ex - Servicemen. Out of 96 posts, 12 posts were reserved for the Ex - Servicemen and only 6 posts in the aforesaid category have been filled up out of 12 vacancies vide order dated 7th May, 2012 passed by the District Collector, Sawai Madhopur. In the case of Dharam Singh Gurjar, whose Roll Number is 38111668 and Merit in SBC category is 9634, it is further submitted that petitioner stands higher than him to in merit of SBC. In the case of Dharam Singh Gurjar, whose Roll Number is 38111668 and Merit in SBC category is 9634, it is further submitted that petitioner stands higher than him to in merit of SBC. However, Dharam Singh Gurjar has been shown to be selected in SBC category, whereas according to the aforementioned instruction of the government, his selection should be counted against OBC quota particularly when out of 20 posts of OBC Category, only 6 candidates have been selected in quota of Ex - Servicemen and apart from, only one more 5 candidate of Ex - Servicemen in OBC category stands at Merit No. 14549 has been selected, who is lower than in merit of Dharam Singh Gurjar. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Circular/order dated 6th May, 2010 and contended that if any candidate of SBC category is selected, his selection should be counted firstly in OBC category, who does not come o in merit of OBC category then his/her candidature shall be considered in SBC category for the purpose of computation of quota. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even if the appointment of Dharam Singh Gurjar is made against Ex - Servicemen Quota by affording benefit of horizontal reservation, then also his candidature could 5 not have been considered because such reservation should be provided within 20 posts of OBC category. So far as the reservation of SBC category is concerned i.e. Vertical reservation and Dharam Singh Gurjar belonging to the Ex - Service Men category i.e. Horizontal reservation could not have been considered against the reservation SBC category and his candidature should have been considered against the quota of OBC category. It is further submitted that it is admitted position that petitioner stands at Merit No.1 in SBC category and his candidature must have been considered against one post of SBC according to the vertical reservation following the procedure laid down under the order dated 6th May, 2010. 5. It is further submitted that it is admitted position that petitioner stands at Merit No.1 in SBC category and his candidature must have been considered against one post of SBC according to the vertical reservation following the procedure laid down under the order dated 6th May, 2010. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as per Point No.2 of the advertisement dated 7th March, 2011, the reservation is provided to the Ex Service Men/best player in horizontal category in which they belong and accordingly, one Shri Dharam Singh Gurjar, who has acquired less marks than the petitioner but even then he has been considered for appointment on the basis of reservation of Ex Service Men/Best Player in the SBC category. He further contended that it is clearly evident that against one post of SBC, Shri Dharam Singh Gurjar appointed on the basis of his horizontal reservation in the category of Ex Service Men/Best Player. 6. Indisputedly, the petitioner's merit is 129 whereas Dharam Singh Gurjar stands at Merit No.9634 in the SBC category has been selected in Ex - Service Men quota. The two candidates of SBC category, who have been shown at S.No.31 & 51, have been selected against the quota of general category and OBC category. Another OBC candidate, who stands at Merit No. 14549 has been selected Ex - Service Men quota. Therefore, there was no reason why the only post of SBC was consumed by a candidate of Ex - Service Men category because 20 posts of OBC out of 97, which were otherwise available, were ear - marked for OBC and only one post was given to SBC category. The official respondent had the option of counting that selection of respondent No.4 against both OBC as well as SBC category on account of the aforesaid circular dated 6th May, 2010 and they should have counted his selection against 20 posts of OBC and not against the post of SBC category, whereas entitlement of the petitioner was much better than respondent No.4 Dharam Singh Gurjar. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Patwari as per his merit in SBC category without disturbing appointment of respondent No.4 Dharam Singh Gurjar, whose appointment may be counted against OBC category. 7. In view of the above, the present writ petition succeeds and it is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Patwari as per his merit in SBC category without disturbing appointment of respondent No.4 Dharam Singh Gurjar, whose appointment may be counted against OBC category. The appointment of the petitioner may be given effect to from the date on which last candidate in OBC category is appointed. However, it is made clear that the petitioner will be entitled only for the notional benefits for the period in question. The above exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.This order also disposes of the stay application as well.Writ petition allowed. *******