Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2181 (RAJ)

Akash Chanwariya v. State of Rajasthan

2018-11-01

DINESH MEHTA

body2018
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner questioning the conduct of selection process on the post of Safai Karamchari pursuant to list of selected candidates in general category (Annexures-4). 2. It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have drawn a lottery in terms of Rule 9 of the Rules in an illegal manner, wherein, they first drew lottery for the reserved category candidates and then for the general category candidates by including those who could not get selected against reserved category. 3. Another challenge laid is that while drawing lottery for the general category candidates, the respondents should not have included the reserved category candidates. 4. Submissions have been made that the respondents have violated the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the judgment in the case of Swaroop Kumar Acharya & Ors. v. State & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7371/2014, decided on 09.05.2017. 5. The petitioner, though belong to Scheduled Caste, chose to file his application for the post of Safai Karamchari in the general category and on failure to get selected, has questioned the procedure adopted by the respondents. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State on caveat made submissions that the issue sought to be raised already stands decided by judgment of this Court in Ravi Jajot & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10496/2018, decided on 30.08.2018. 7. Further submissions have been made that the judgment in the case of Swaroop Kumar Acharya (supra) has also been taken into consideration while issuing the directions in the case to deal with the recruitment of Safai Karamcharis in the said judgment and the plea now sought to be raised by the petitioner already stands answered in the said case and, therefore, there is no reason to take a view different from what has already been taken by this Court in the case of Ravi Jajot (supra) and, therefore, the writ petition deserve to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The petitioner, as noticed hereinbefore, belong to Scheduled Caste, chose to file application as general category candidates and now seeking to question the fact that the reserved category candidates have been granted two opportunities, one while drawing the lottery pertaining to reserved category candidates and then including them in the general category candidates. 10. Submissions have also been made regarding the sequence. It is submitted that first lottery of general category candidates including the reserved category candidates should have been drawn and, thereafter, the lottery of the left out reserved category candidates should have been drawn by the respondents and, as the procedure has not been adopted, the entire selection deserves to be quashed. 11. The issue sought to be raised cannot be appreciated in so far as the case of the petitioner, who has applied in general category is concerned, inasmuch as, the petitioner got a better chance for getting selected once the selection was made earlier in the category of reserved category candidates and, therefore, merely because in the estimation of the petitioner the sequence of drawing lottery was other way round cannot be a reason to question the validity of the selection unless the petitioner is affected by it. 12. So far as the submissions pertaining to the inclusion of the reserved category candidates in the general category is concerned, the issue is well settled. 13. This Court in the case of Kaushal Tripathi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13946/2018, decided on 14.09.2018 referring to the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bihari Lal Rada v. Anil Jain (Tinu) & Ors., (2009) 4 SCC 1 laid down that for unreserved post, eligible candidates belonging to all the categories including Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Class are entitled to be considered and, therefore, even if lottery has to be drawn for the post of general candidates, the respondents were justified in including all the eligible candidates belonging to reserved category as well. 14. 14. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner seeking to question the validity of judgment in the case of Ravi Jajot (supra) being contrary to the judgment in the case of Swaroop Kumar Acharya (supra) is concerned, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Jajot (supra) has dealt with all the issues from para 70 to 75 and, therefore, even if the judgment has not specifically been indicated/dealt with, the same already stands considered and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Court has not taken into consideration the ratio in the case of Swaroop Kumar Acharya (supra). 15. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.