Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 829 (RAJ)

Ramgopal Jat v. State of Rajasthan

2015-04-13

PRAKASH GUPTA, SUNIL AMBWANI

body2015
ORDER : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is serving as Teacher Grade III in the Sanskrit Department. He appeared in the preliminary examinations for Rajasthan Administrative Service, 2012, held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, and failed to qualify for the Mains Written Examination. 3. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner, being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.724/2013, claiming discrimination, in not including him in 7% reservation on the available vacancies, to be reserved for various non-gazetted employees of the Government, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads. 4. Learned Single Judge, in his judgment dated 16.12.2013, relied on the reply filed by the respondents, in which it was stated that the petitioners are not covered by specific departmental Service Rules, holding them entitled to any further reservation of 12.5%, which is provided in the Rules of the Departments, namely, Cooperative, Excise, Food & Civil Supplies and Devasthan Subordinate Services, to claim benefit of reservations in appearing in the RAS Examinations, as departmental candidates. Learned Single Judge however, permitted the writ petitioners to withdraw the writ petition, with liberty to make representation to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, to be decided within three weeks, on making the representation. 5. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer has, by its order dated 07.04.2014, rejected the representation, on the ground that the petitioner is serving as a Teacher in the Education Department, and thus, he does not fall within the category of departmental employees, to be given benefit in the RAS/RTS Examination. The relevant Rules of the Departments, to provide for 12.5% reservation for the ministerial employees, to appear in the RAS/RTS Examination, is confined to only five departments, who are under their relevant Service Rules, given 7% reservation in the RAS/RTS Examination. The writ petitioners thus, cannot be given the benefit. 6. The relevant Rules of the Departments, to provide for 12.5% reservation for the ministerial employees, to appear in the RAS/RTS Examination, is confined to only five departments, who are under their relevant Service Rules, given 7% reservation in the RAS/RTS Examination. The writ petitioners thus, cannot be given the benefit. 6. Now by this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “(i) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof the discriminatory rules 7A(1) of Rajasthan Subordinates Co-operative Services (Class-I) Rules, 1955, 7B (1) of Rajasthan Subordinates Co-operative Services (Class-I) Rules, 1955, Rule 6(iii) of Rajasthan Sub-ordinate Accounts Service Rules, 1963, Rule 6(III) of Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Services Rules, 1971 and Rule 6(1)(a) Part-III of Rajasthan Food & Civil Supplies Subordinate Services Rules, 1974, Rule 6(a) of Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service Rules, 1974, be declared ultra-vires and unconstitutional or in alternative petitioner be given the same benefit of 12½% reservation in the RAS selection process by amending the rules of other departments. (ii) By an appropriate writ, order and direction in the nature thereof thereby the Respondent No.2-RPSC may kindly be directed to declare the result of main RAS Exam-2012 of the petitioner and if found in merit then he may be considered for the appointment. (iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 7. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that there is no provision in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules 1999, providing for any reservation, except for a proviso to Rule 4, providing for 7% of the available vacancies in the State Services, to be filled in by direct recruitment, to be reserved for the candidates, who are non-gazetted employees of the Government, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, and the reservation to be determined in accordance with the roster prescribed. 8. 8. It is submitted that the provision of reservation in the respective Service Rules of the Rajasthan Subordinate Cooperative Service, Rajasthan Subordinate Accounts Service, Rajasthan Commercial Taxes Subordinate Service, Rajasthan Food and Civil Supplies Subordinate Service and Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service, to the extent of providing benefit of 12.5% in RAS selection process, is discriminatory, as against the Service Rules, applicable to the petitioner as Teacher Grade III in the Sanskrit Department. 9. It is submitted that firstly, in absence of any provision in the Rules of 1999, applicable to recruitment, and for Combined Competitive Examination of RAS/RTS, the reservation to the administrative staff of the five Services, mentioned as above, is illegal and arbitrary, and that, in any case, the provision of such reservation only for the five selected departments in their Service Rules, has caused invidious discrimination to the employees of the other departments. 10. Upon hearing learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, we find that the opportunity to the extent of 12.5% to the employees of the five departments, mentioned as above, to appear in the RAS/RTS Examination under the Rules of 1999 for 7% reserved vacancies, to be filled in by direct recruitment. The proviso to Rule 4 provides for a competitive examination for direct recruitment through the agency of the Commission to the posts in State and Subordinate Services, as mentioned in respect of Schedule I and Schedule II, and direct recruitment to such posts to be made by Combined Competitive Examination. The Rule provides for 7% of the available vacancies to be filled in by direct recruitment to be reserved for non-gazetted employees of the Government, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads. The reservation to the non-gazetted employees of the Government, includes only those employees, in whose services conditions such reservation is provided, subject to the condition that the maximum reservation in the Combined Competitive Examination for Subordinate Service does not exceed 7%. 11. The object of providing the reservation to the extent of 7% of the available vacancies, to the non-gazetted employees of the Government, Panchayat Samitis and Zila Parishads, is to give opportunity to such employees in the State and Subordinate Services. This opportunity however, has been limited to the non-gazetted employees of the Departments, who are engaged in executive functions of the State. 12. This opportunity however, has been limited to the non-gazetted employees of the Departments, who are engaged in executive functions of the State. 12. The petitioner is serving as Teacher Grade III, and is an employee of the Education Department of the State. He does not serve, or perform any administrative function or duties, or discharges any work, in the aid of the executive functions of the State. The petitioner thus falls in an entirely different class. The non-provision of reservation in the Service Rules applicable to the petitioner, as in case of the five departments, is thus, not discriminatory. The challenge to the vires of the Rules in the five Departments, in which 12.5% reservation has been provided, to the staff, to be included within 7% of the reservation under the proviso to Rule 4 of the Rules of 1999, is thus, without any substance. The petitioner as Teacher Grade in the Education Department, does not fall in the same category, or class, for which the reservation has been provided. 13. The Writ Petition has no merits, and is accordingly dismissed.