Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1587 (RAJ)

JYOTI v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

2019-05-21

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners aggrieved against the result of lottery (Annex.6) conducted by the respondents for selection on the post of Safai Karamchari and a direction to the respondents to accommodate the petitioners on the post of Safai Karamchari pursuant to the advertisement dated 13/4/2018. 2. Essentially the petitioners are seeking direction that the respondents should have drawn lots (conducted lottery) of general category candidates independent of candidates of reserved category. 3. The issue raised in the present writ petition has already been decided by this Court in Sumitra Devi & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13481/2018 and other connected matters, decided on 26.9.2018, wherein, this Court has negated the contentions raised by the petitioners therein. 4. In the case of Sumitra Devi (supra) this Court laid down as under:- "The petitioners, as noticed hereinbefore, belong to Scheduled Caste, chose to file applications 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. 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. The issue sought to be raised cannot be appreciated in so far as the case of the petitioners, who have applied in general category is concerned, inasmuch as, the petitioners 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 petitioners the sequence of drawing lottery was other way round cannot be a reason to question the validity of the selection unless the petitioners are affected by it. 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. This Court in the case of Kaushal Tripathi v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. 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. 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 Honble 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. So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners 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). In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed." 5. The issue raised in the present writ petition stands covered by the judgment in the case of Sumitra Devi (supra). 6. In view thereof, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.