Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 94 (RAJ)

Shyam Sunder v. Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

2019-01-08

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Technical Helper in the OBC category with all consequential benefits and allow him to join. 2. Pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/2018-19, the petitioner applied for the post of Technical Helper. Pursuant to the written test held by the respondents, the petitioner having obtained marks more than the cut-off as declared, he was called for document verification, which was scheduled on 30.09.2018. On 30.09.2018 when the petitioner appeared for document verification, he gave an affidavit that he had appeared in the ITI exam in August, 2018, however, his result has not been declared and therefore, he may be granted opportunity to produce his result. However, as the petitioner failed to produce the mark-sheet / his qualification of ITI during document verification, his candidature was rejected by the respondents. Thereafter, on 10.10.2018, the result of the petitioner was declared and a certificate in this regard was issued to him. Based on which, the petitioner approached the respondents for according appointment as he had obtained marks more than the cut-off. However, when the same was not granted, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination and had passed the same, but he could not produce the requisite document during document verification, however, now once the petitioner has passed the requisite qualifying examination and had obtained higher marks in the exam conducted by the respondents, he may be accorded appointment. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the stipulation in the advertisement was very clear wherein for educational qualification it was indicated that a candidate must possess the requisite qualification on the date fixed for document verification. Admittedly, the documents verification took place on 30.09.2018 and the petitioner passed the requisite qualifying examination on 10.10.2018 and as such, on the date of document verification, the petitioner was not qualified and therefore, rejection of petitioners candidature was justified. 5. Reliance has been placed on Ramesh Chandra Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13367/2013, decided on 24.11.2017. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. 5. Reliance has been placed on Ramesh Chandra Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13367/2013, decided on 24.11.2017. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The stipulation in the advertisement Annex.-1 regarding the qualification is very clear wherein the candidate is required to possess the requisite qualification on the date fixed for document verification. As admittedly the petitioner was not qualified on the date of document verification i.e. 30.09.2018 as his result of the qualifying examination was declared on 10.10.2018, the rejection of his candidature by the respondents on that count cannot be faulted. 8. Merely because the respondents had permitted the candidates, who had appeared in the final examination to participate in the recruitment process cannot be used against the respondents to seek appointment to the candidate, who was not qualified on the date of document verification. 9. In view of above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.