Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2531 (RAJ)

Laxmi v. The State Of Rajasthan

2022-09-28

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for taking additional documents on record has been preferred on behalf of the petitioner. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the documents are taken on record. 3. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the matter has been heard finally. 4. The present petition has been filed with a prayer for consideration of candidature of the petitioner as per her merit for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II for subject Sanskrit in pursuance to the advertisement of the year 2013. 5. The case of the petitioner is that she belonged to OBC category and filled up her application form in the same category. However, the certificate issued to her was of the year 2012 and therefore, in terms of general rules the same was valid for a period of one year. In the year 2013 when the advertisement in question was issued, the petitioner did not possess a fresh OBC (NCL) certificate as required but in view of Clause No. 8(i)(c) of the advertisement, the said certificate ought to have been considered to be valid for a period of three years by the department. After declaration of the result the petitioner's name found place in the original list and she was even called for document verification. At that stage of document verification, she submitted an affidavit in terms of Clause 8(i)(c) of the advertisement to the effect that she still belonged to the OBC (NCL) category and her affidavit may be taken on record. 6. During the pendency of the recruitment process certain litigation arose and by virtue of that litigation, a revised merit list was issued on 29.08.2017. Name of the petitioner found place in that merit list too but in the final select list her name was not included and aggrieved against the same present writ petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an affidavit in terms of Clause 8(i)(c) of the advertisement was very well filed by her at the time of document verification and the same was even taken on record and therefore, after issuance of the revised merit list in the year 2017, the same ought to have been considered and her name ought to have been included in the final select list. 8. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a specific requirement of the advertisement that the OBC (NCL) certificate was to be submitted at the time of submission of online application form and if the same had expired, an affidavit to the effect that the candidate still belonged to the OBC (NCL) category was also required to be submitted at the time of the submission of the online application form only. Admittedly, the said affidavit was submitted by the petitioner at the time of document verification and therefore, the same could not have been considered for the purposes of selection. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. There is no dispute on the fact that the cut off declared for the OBC (NCL) women category was 178.37 marks and the petitioner obtained 178.85 marks. Therefore, she admittedly stood in merit. 11. However, the dispute is as to whether because of non-submission of the affidavit at the time of submission of application form, as required in terms of Clause 8(i)(c) of the advertisement, the same could not have been considered and the petitioner consequently could not have been considered to be a candidate of OBC (NCL) category. A perusal of the documents as placed on record along with the application filed subsequently by the counsel for the petitioner makes it clear that a report by the competent officer after document verification was made on 07.03.2015 which specifically mentions that OBC certificate as submitted by the petitioner was 18 months' old and an affidavit to the effect had also been submitted. It is also clear on record that the revised merit list was issued in the year 2017 and the same also included name of the petitioner. The provisional merit list issued on 29.08.2017 specifies that the candidates mentioned therein were to be called for document verification. Therefore, when till the year 2017, the recruitment in question was in process and the candidates included subsequently vide the revised result were being called for document verification, there was no reason as to why the petitioner, who had already submitted the required documents way back in the year 2015, was not considered for appointment. Admittedly, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of her non-submission of the affidavit as required in terms of the advertisement. Admittedly, the candidature of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of her non-submission of the affidavit as required in terms of the advertisement. In the opinion of this Court, the required document was admittedly submitted by the petitioner at the time of document verification and the same ought to have been considered when the final select list was issued in the year 2017. 12. A similar controversy arose in the matter of Svaranjeet Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 820/2015 decided on 09.02.2016 before the Division Bench of this Court wherein at the first occasion, the OBC certificate as required was not submitted by the candidates therein but at the later stage a fresh certificate was submitted. The Division Bench in those circumstances allowed the appeals of the candidates therein and directed the respondents to consider the candidates for the purpose of appointment. 13. In the present matter, the petitioner had submitted the required affidavit at the stage of document verification and admittedly the recruitment process continued till the year 2017. Therefore the same ought to have been considered and the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner on that ground cannot be held to be valid. 14. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to accord appointment to the petitioner to the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II (subject-Sanskrit) as per her merit. The petitioner would be entitled to all the notional benefits that would accrue to her because of the said appointment w.e.f. the date respondent No. 3 was afforded the appointment. The said exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of submission of the copy of the present order. 15. It is relevant to note that respondent No. 3 who was the candidate just next (lower) in merit to the petitioner, was appointed and has therefore been impleaded as party respondent. In the opinion of this Court, just because of the present writ petition of the petitioner being allowed, the selection of respondent No. 3 cannot be set aside and therefore it is directed that respondent No. 3 would also be continued in terms of her appointment and her services would not be terminated. If no seat is found to be vacant as of date, the respondents are directed to create a new post for the purpose. 16. If no seat is found to be vacant as of date, the respondents are directed to create a new post for the purpose. 16. All the pending applications stand disposed of.