Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1280 (RAJ)

Ghanshyam Singh Gadhvi v. State of Rajasthan

2023-07-04

ARUN BHANSALI

body2023
ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of PTI (Gr.III) with effect from the date other candidates were appointed with all consequential benefits and reliefs. 2. It is inter alia indicated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.9.2013 (Annex.P/1), which was a joint advertisement for the post of PTI (Gr.II) and PTI (Gr.III), the petitioner applied in the category of OBC and participated in the selection process. The result was initially declared by the RPSC on 5.10.2015 (Annex.P/3), wherein the cut-off in petitioner's category was 262.37 marks. The petitioner had obtained 258.32 marks. 3. After re-shuffling of the result on several occasions, the last appointment in terms of the advertisement was granted on 6.1.2022 (Annex.P/10) to one Vartika Dwivedi. The plea raised in the petition is that the petitioner has obtained marks higher than the cut-off in several re-shuffled lists and posts are lying vacant with the respondents and, therefore, the respondents be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement (Annex.P/1). 4. Further submissions have been made that though the respondent - RPSC in its reply to the petition has indicated that the last candidate, who has been accorded appointment on the post of PTI (Gr.III), has secured 258.37 marks, higher by 0.5 marks than the petitioner, no further particulars have been provided and, therefore, the respondent - RPSC be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner as well. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the RPSC with reference to para-8 of the reply made submissions that in the category of the petitioner, the candidate, who had obtained 258.37 marks, is the last candidate who has been accorded appointment and no one who has obtained marks less than the petitioner, has been accorded appointment. The petitioner has no case and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. A bare look at the various re-shuffled results / lists, wherein, the petitioner has obtained marks higher than the cut-off, would reveal that the roll number of the petitioner has been reflected in the reserve list, which is far higher in number than the vacant posts. 8. 7. A bare look at the various re-shuffled results / lists, wherein, the petitioner has obtained marks higher than the cut-off, would reveal that the roll number of the petitioner has been reflected in the reserve list, which is far higher in number than the vacant posts. 8. The RPSC in its response has categorically indicated that no one, who has obtained marks less than the petitioner, has been accorded appointment and the last candidate, who has been accorded appointment on the post of PTI (Gr.III) has obtained 258.37 marks and on the post of PTI (Gr.II) the candidate has obtained 319.24 marks, which are higher than the petitioner. 9. Despite grant of several opportunities after filing of the reply by the RPSC, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that any candidate, who has secured marks less than the petitioner, has been accorded appointment by the respondents. 10. So far as the plea raised regarding posts lying vacant is concerned, as apparently the recruitment was initiated way back on 2013, only on account of the fact that posts are lying vacant, no direction can be issued for filling-up the said vacant posts from the candidates pursuant to advertisement dated 18.9.2013 as subsequently another recruitment has been held in the year 2018. 11. In view of the above discussion, no case for interference is made out in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.