Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1464 (RAJ)

Varsha Singhal v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-13

ALOK SHARMA

body2019
ORDER : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. Under challenge is the order dated 22.8.2018 issued by the respondents publishing the list for allotment of districts to the selected candidates for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) & (Level-II) pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.9.2017. 2. The case of the petitioner is that pursuant to the advertisement dated 11.9.2017 issued by the respondents for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) & (Level-II) in Government Primary and Upper Primary Schools, she applied for the post in issue under General Female Category. She participated in the selection process and successful therein, was called for documents verification. It has been submitted that the petitioner secured 65.65 marks and merit position no. was 4851 in the selection process. Subsequently revised result was issued and the petitioner’s merit was then upgraded from 4851 to 2187. The petitioner had sought allotment of District Bharatpur as her first choice in her online application form. On 22.8.2018, the respondents issued the list allotting the Districts to the selected candidates. The petitioner’s case is that despite having secured merit no. 2187, she was allotted District Udaipur, whereas the candidates lower in merit than the petitioner (merit no. 2210, 2347, 2378 and 2421) were allotted District Bharatpur in General Female Category. Hence the writ petition. 3. A reply to the petition has been filed. It has been submitted that the petitioner belongs to General Female Category and her merit no. is 2210, whereas the merit number of last general female category candidate who has been given posting in District Bharatpur, is 1589. So far as the candidate at merit no. 2210 is concerned, it was submitted that albeit she belonged to OBC female category candidate, but as per her merit position, her selection was made against general female category candidate and was allotted District Bharatpur in the reserved category. Similarly the other candidates lower than the petitioner in the merit list were allotted Bharatpur District in the reserved category to which they belonged. In this view of the matter, no candidate lower in merit than the petitioner in general female category per se has been allotted District Bharatpur and for this reason, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. In this view of the matter, no candidate lower in merit than the petitioner in general female category per se has been allotted District Bharatpur and for this reason, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 4. Heard. Considered. 5. Admittedly the petitioner belongs to General Female Category, whereas the other candidates lower in merit than the petitioner who have been allotted District Bharatpur, belong to different reserved categories (not the General Female category) and have been allotted seats in the reserve quota albeit according to their merit position, they were indeed selected against the posts for General Female category. It is well settled that the more meritorious reserved category candidates cannot be put to a disadvantage vis-à-vis any benefit available to them in law merely because of having been selected in the general category on the basis of their better performance at a public examination they took in their respective reserved category. On this ground, nothing illegal can be attributed to the respondents in allotment of Districts in the reserved quota to the selected more meritorious reserved category candidates according to their merit position. Counsel for the petitioner has not able to satisfy this Court as to how the petitioner’s legal or fundamental rights was infringed on account of non allotment of District Bharatpur to her, in view of none in the General Female Category less meritorious than her - excluding those reserved category candidates who being more meritorious than general category candidates per se found place in the general category - was allotted District Bharatpur. 6. I would therefore be disinclined to interfere in this petition which is wholly baseless, frivolous and founded on suppression of true facts. It is accordingly dismissed. 7. This state of affairs of baseless and frivolous cases crowding the dockets of this Court will continue to be perpetuated if the courts deal with and decide such cases on a one to one basis instead of considering the necessity to message the litigating public that such cases will be dealt with a heavy hand and no litigant will be allowed to seek litigious advantage from errors possible in a court overflowing with dockets and with paucity of time to evaluate and scrutinize a case closely for its merits in the first instance. It is the duty of the Court/s to reduce litigation and in discharge of that duty costs must be visited on the party which has invoked the Court’s equitable extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cynically and without a just cause. In this view of the matter, the petitioner only a Teacher Grade-III is visited with a token cost of Rs.2,000/- to be deposited with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within four months from today.