Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1533 (RAJ)

Shravan Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2019-05-16

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the select list (Annex.4) for the post of Constable (General) the same being in violation of recruitment jurisprudence and a direction to the respondents to declare marks of the aspirants obtained in each phase of examination and to issue the cut-off marks of various categories including OBC category and issue combined merit list category-wise. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2018 applied for the post of Constable (General) for district Bhilwara. In the list (Annex.4) published by the respondents indicating the category-wise roll numbers of candidates, wherein, the name of the petitioner was included and he underwent PST/PET, however, in the select list (Annex.7), the name of the petitioner did not appear. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. It is inter alia indicated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have adopted the procedure which is not known to recruitment jurisprudence, inasmuch as, the cut-off was not declared and the candidates of reserved category, who got higher marks than the last candidate of general category, were not migrated to general category, the marks stage-wise have not been declared and the entire recruitment stands vitiated and, therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that the averments made in the writ petition are based on incomplete information, inasmuch as, the respondents after the PST/PET was over, has uploaded the marks-sheets of written examination of all the candidates and that the cut-off etc. for each district has been issued by the respondents and alongwith the reply, the cut-off (Annex.R/1) has been placed on record in this regard. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The entire petition filed by the petitioner is essentially in the nature of undertaking a fishing enquiry, wherein, specific allegations pertaining to petitioners own recruitment are missing. The averments made are absolutely general in nature and the allegations have been made based on the alleged violation of recruitment jurisprudence. 8. 7. The entire petition filed by the petitioner is essentially in the nature of undertaking a fishing enquiry, wherein, specific allegations pertaining to petitioners own recruitment are missing. The averments made are absolutely general in nature and the allegations have been made based on the alleged violation of recruitment jurisprudence. 8. This Court in Arun Kumar and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18519/2018, decided on 10.5.2019, wherein also, issue regarding procedure adopted by the respondents during course of recruitment were raised, has came to the conclusion that the allegations made therein were baseless and that the procedure adopted by the respondents was in accordance with the so-called recruitment jurisprudence. 9. Regarding the allegations made by the petitioner based on cut-off (Annex.R/1) produced by the respondents, wherein, reference has been made to district Bikaner, where the cut-off for general (female) category has been indicated at 33.375 and for OBC (female) category, the same has been indicated at 46.75, it is submitted that the said aspect indicates that the migration as envisaged has not taken place and, therefore, probably in case of district Bhilwara where the petitioner has applied, also the same may have happen. 10. A perusal of the cut-off for district Bhilwara indicates that for the male category the cut-off of general (male) category is 53.375 and for OBC (male), the same is 52.375 and the same situation has arisen for female candidates, which is higher for general and lower for OBC. Unless the petitioner makes out/alleges a specific case regarding the respondents failing to migrate the OBC category candidates having higher marks than the general category candidates, merely based on the cut-off for district Bikaner, wherein also no facts have been alleged by the petitioner, no case is made out for undertaking a fishing enquiry as sought by the petitioner. 11. In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.