Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 930 (RAJ)

Jitendra Kumar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2016-07-05

NAVIN SINHA, PANKAJ BHANDARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : The present appeal arises from order dated 20.05.2016 dismissing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4971/2016 and analogous cases in view of an earlier order dated IT.05.2016 passed by a Division Bench (Jaipur Bench) in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2016 and 117 analogous appeals on a similar issue. 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that if in the preliminary examination a reserved category candidate failed to secure the cut off marks in his own category, but secured more than the cut off marks for the general category which was lower, the reserved category candidate is required to be treated as a general category candidate and has to be called for the main examination by bringing him within the ambit of fifteen times the number of candidates according to vacancies. In absence of the same, it causes hostile discrimination and amounts to arbitrariness by shutting out a reserved category candidate at the stage of preliminary examination itself notwithstanding the fact that he had more marks than a candidate in the general category. It tantamounts to creation of reservation in favour of general category candidates. This was never the intendment of the Constitution to penalise a reserved category candidate despite his better performance than a general category candidate. Reliance was placed on Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 785 . 3. We have considered the submissions. The order of the Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2016 has been considered and examined by us meticulously. Except for what has been urged on behalf of the appellants as noticed above, no substantial question of law has been urged before us to require reconsideration of the order of the Division Bench by reference to a larger Bench. 4. The matter relates to recruitment on the post of Patwari under an advertisement dated 04.11.2015. The same advertisement on similar grounds fell for consideration in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.635/2016. The scheme of the examination provided that after the preliminary examination candidates 15 times in number of the vacancies in that category were required to be called for the written examination. Different cut off marks were provided for each category. This was but a replication of Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). Different cut off marks were provided for each category. This was but a replication of Rule 15 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter called 'the Rules'). There was no challenge to the Rules in the writ petition. 5. The Division Bench considering the Rule has already dealt with the issue in detail holding that the candidates were required to be called in fifteen times the number of vacancies category-wise. The cut off marks for the candidates were prescribed separately category-wise as general, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other backward classes. The Division Bench upon consideration has already held that shortlisting of candidates from amongst the large number of applicants by holding a preliminary examination for purposes of the main examination was permissible in the law and the question of reservation at this stage did not arise. If a candidate belonging to one category is interspersed into the other categories at this stage and reckoned as eligible to be called for the main examination, it may affect the equitable balance of candidates appearing at the main examination. In such an event the entire purpose of shortlisting candidates category wise would become redundant. There is no occasion for us to take any different view of the matter than that taken by the coordinate Division Bench. It has already been noticed by us that there was no challenge to the Rules. 6. Reliance on Rajesh Kumar Daria's (supra) is completely misconceived. The issue therein related to vertical and horizontal reservation alleging that women candidates had been selected in excess by applying vertical reservation instead of horizontal reservation. It concerned the final selections and not the question under consideration with regard to calling of successful candidates at the preliminary examination in the prescribed number category wise for the final written examination. 7. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal. 8. The appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.