ORDER : (Sameer Jain, J.) PREFATORY REMARKS 1. With the consent of all the parties and considering that the instant petitions are of an akin and/or interwoven factual matrix, a common judgment is passed. 2. For the sake of convenience, the petitioner in SBCWP No. 1991/2022 titled as Narendra Singh Nathawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. shall hereafter, be referred as P1 and the petitioner in SBCWP No. 7856/2023 titled as Rahul Patidar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. shall be referred as P2. 3. The present judgment is categorized into the following heads: I) FACTUAL ASSERTIONS QUA SBCWP No. 1991/2022 II) FACTUAL ASSERTIONS QUA SBCWP No. 7856/2023 III) ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE SIDES IV) DISCUSSION & FINDINGS V) CONCLUSION FACTUAL ASSERTIONS QUA SBCWP No. 1991/2022 3. The petitioner i.e. P1 was initially appointed as a ‘Probationer Trainee Helper-II’ in the Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. (AVVNL) on 07.11.2019 and had completed his probation period on 13.01.2022. During the continuation of his service, P1 applied for the post of ‘Junior Engineer-I’, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 22.02.2021, issued by the respondents. P1 applied as an in-service candidate of Nigam (Application form of P1-Annexure-5). Vide circular dated 16.01.2020, issued by the respondents for the purpose of absorption of employees under the TSP Area or the Non-TSP Area, P1 got absorbed under the TSP Area. As per, point/para no. 11 of the said circular, the person who opts for absorption under the category of TSP Area/Scheduled Area, could not opt for transfer or posting outside the prescribed area. The grievance of P1 is that his candidature for the post of Junior Engineer-I, is not being considered under the ‘TSP Area’ category, despite the fact that he has been permanently absorbed under the said category, by way of the said clause of the noted circular, which reads as under: ^^11- tks deZpkjh vuqlwfpr {ks= esa jgus dk fodYi jgrs gS mudk bl fof'k"V lsok fofu;eksa ds vUrxZr jgus rd mDRk vuqlwfpr {ks= ls ckgj LFkkukUrj.k@inLFkkiu ugha fd;k tkosxkA^^ 4. As per the provisions noted under Regulation No. 6(3) and 6(3a) of the AVVNL Scheduled Area Engineers, Ministerial and Class-IV service (Recruitment and other service condition) Regulations, 2017, options/applications were invited for the said absorption in/outside the close cadre services under the Scheduled Areas of Rajasthan. As per the provisions noted under Regulation No. 6(3) and 6(3a) of the AVVNL Scheduled Area Engineers, Ministerial and Class-IV service (Recruitment and other service condition) Regulations, 2017, options/applications were invited for the said absorption in/outside the close cadre services under the Scheduled Areas of Rajasthan. The said list prepared after due consideration of the authorities was then approved by the Managing Director, AVVNL, Ajmer. The name of P1 stands at serial no. 53 of the said approval order dated 30.03.2020 (Annexure-4). 5. It is an evident fact, that P1 was born in a TSP Area and is also a bonafide resident of the same (Annuexure-8). On 11.12.2021, P1 appeared in the online examination wherein, his name stood in the provisional merit list, issued by the respondents. Thereafter, on 29.01.2022 P1 was called for document verification along with other candidates, whose names were reflected in the provisional merit list. 6. The cause of action arose, when on the date of document verification, P1 was informed that his candidature was rejected due to non-availability of the certificate of TSP Area, issued by a Competent Authority. It was an admitted fact that the petitioner had applied under the category of in-service candidate, working under a TSP Area. 7. Hence, during the currency of the present petition, an interim protection was granted in the favour of P1, as is also reflected vide Annexure-7 in SBCWP No. 7856/2023. FACTUAL ASSERTIONS QUA SBCWP No. 7856/2023 8. The respondents issued an advertisement dated 22.02.2021 for recruitment on various posts. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner i.e. P2, applied for the post of Junior Engineer-I (Electrical). As per the said advertisement 03 posts were reserved for the category under which P2 had applied i.e. in-service candidates of the Nigam. 9. Accordingly, P2 appeared in the online examination and thereafter was called for the document verification on 29.01.2022. After the procedure of document verification was over, the final cut-off marks were declared for specific categories wherein, the category under which P2 had applied, the cut-off marks were 88.5% and P2 scored 81.0%. (Annexure-7) However, it was categorically mentioned in the said cut-off list that 01 seat is kept vacant, subject to the final outcome of the petition – SBCWP No. 1991/2022. 10. (Annexure-7) However, it was categorically mentioned in the said cut-off list that 01 seat is kept vacant, subject to the final outcome of the petition – SBCWP No. 1991/2022. 10. In this background, it was stated that as per the notifications dated 16.06.2013 and 21.10.2019, the candidates who belonged to the TSP Area were only be considered for appointment on the advertised post. Explanation qua the definition of a bonafide resident was that any person who is born prior to 01.01.1970 or if born after 01.01.1970 his/her parents should have been the residents, shall be considered as a bonafide resident of the said category. Additionally, the said advertisement categorically stated that the candidate must possess the TSP Area certificate, issued by a Competent Authority. 11. Howsoever, P1 lacks the said certificate and is therefore, ineligible for appointment qua the said post. ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BOTH THE SIDES 12. At the outset, in the backdrop of above stated factual submissions, learned counsel for P1-Mr. Punit Singhvi had placed reliance upon order dated 30.03.2020 (Annexure-4), passed by the respondent-AVVNL wherein, the list for employees who were working in the Scheduled (TSP) Area and had opted for absorption in the close cadre services of the Scheduled (TSP) Area, as per Regulation 6(3) of the Regulations, 2017 was declared. It is evident that P1’s name is placed at Serial No. 53 under circle – Udaipur. Thereafter, under the said fiat P1 applied for the said post in pursuance of advertisement dated 22.02.2021. It was further submitted that P1 was born in a TSP Area and has been a bonafide resident of the same area. 13. P1 appeared in the online examination and was thereafter called for document verification on 29.01.2022. The cause and controversy arose, when it was brought to P1’s discern that even after being meritorious, his candidature was not considered only for the reason that he was unable to furnish the TSP Area Certificate. Hence, P1 preferred the instant writ petition and as an interim protection, considering P1’s merit, one seat was kept vacant, subject to the final outcome of the petition. 14. Hence, P1 preferred the instant writ petition and as an interim protection, considering P1’s merit, one seat was kept vacant, subject to the final outcome of the petition. 14. In support of the contentions made, learned counsel placed reliance upon Regulation 6(3) and 6(3a) of the Regulations of 2017 and submitted that P1 holds all the rights to be appointed on the said post, as he had already been absorbed in the said category of TSP Area, explicitly by the respondents only. It was further submitted that it is a rule that any employee who has once been absorbed under the said category, shall not be appointed on any post outside the said cadre. Hence, if P1 will not be appointed on the said post, he shall be made to suffer with great distress, as even after being in merit list, his candidature will be rejected for want of a certificate, nor will he be at liberty to apply under the Non-TSP Area category. 15. Learned counsel had further submitted that the intention of the respondents while making the said certificate mandatory, was to verify that the candidate belongs to the said reserved category only. It was submitted that P1 is an in-service employee, already working under the category of TSP Area. Hence, the verification qua the same can be drawn in either way. 16. Refuting the foregoing contentions expressed by Mr. Singhvi and in the backdrop of the above-mentioned factual submissions, learned counsel for P2-Mr. Tanveer Ahamad submitted that P2 also belongs to the in-service category. P1 stands next in the said merit list with 81 marks, which were the cut-off marks on the date of document verification. It was further stated that the final cut-off marks declared by the respondents, made it explicit that 01 post has been kept reserved subject to the final outcome of the writ petition-S.B. CWP No. 1991/2022. (Annexure-7). 17. Vide notification dated 21.10.2019 it was made clear that the candidates who were bonafide residents of a Scheduled TSP Area would be those born therein prior to 01.01.1970 or if born after 01.01.1970 then his/her parents should remain the residents prior to 01.01.1997. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that P2 has already furnished the said certificate before the respondents. (Annexure-10). 18. In this regard, learned counsel submitted that P2 has already furnished the said certificate before the respondents. (Annexure-10). 18. Ergo, since the candidate (P1) does not possess the mandatorily required certificate of the Scheduled TSP Area and as he does not fulfill the requisite conditions as prescribed under notifications dated 16.06.2013 and 21.10.2019, application and candidature of P2 should be considered qua the said post. It was further submitted that under the garb of the said interim protection 01 seat is left vacant for more than a year. Considering that the respondent-AVVNL falls under the category of Public Utility Service, immediate appointment, of the eligible candidate, should be made on the said post. 19. Learned counsel for P2 further submitted that qua P1 considering the merit of the petitioner, the respondents have time and again rendered opportunities to furnish the mandatory certificate but P1 failed to do so. Additionally, on the date of document verification P1 had furnished an undertaking stating – “I am a permanent resident of Udaipur district, I do not have the TSP Area Certificate. Nor I will be able to provide the same in future.” Thus, the candidature of P1 against the TSP Area vacancy cannot be considered even if he was meritorious, as he did not possess the TSP Area Certificate. (Annexure-R/2/1). 20. In this regard, learned counsel placed reliance upon the notification dated 21.10.2019, issued by the Department of Personnel, GoR and circular dated 16.01.2019 issued by the Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., wherein, the list of documents which were mandatory to be produced, at the time of document verification were categorically mentioned. The list of essential documents, applicable qua the lis in question, are mentioned below: 20.1 Vishesh Mool Niwas Praman Patra, of TSP Area issued by a Competent Authority of Rajasthan. 20.2 SC/ST/MBC/EWS Certificate issued by a Competent Authority of Rajasthan, or as the case maybe. 20.3 In-service certificate/ Employment certificate of the concerned Nigam. 21. Considering that P1 had applied under the in-service category, thus he was required to submit the documents herein mentioned, at 18.1-18.3. It was further averred that the said advertisement and the Regulations, made it explicitly clear that in no case, a candidate who fails to furnish the mandatory documents, shall be considered for the said post. 21. Considering that P1 had applied under the in-service category, thus he was required to submit the documents herein mentioned, at 18.1-18.3. It was further averred that the said advertisement and the Regulations, made it explicitly clear that in no case, a candidate who fails to furnish the mandatory documents, shall be considered for the said post. Thus, P1 who had secured 92.25 marks cannot be considered for the said post/appointment due to insufficiency/non-production of the said documents. 23. After hearing the matter at length, the judgment was reserved for pronouncement vide order dated 22.02.2024. DISCUSSION & FINDINGS 24. After considering the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for both the sides and upon an assiduous perusal of the record, this Court deems it essential to fore-mostly, pen down certain undisputed facts: 24.1 That both the petitioners are absorbed under the category of ‘closed cadre service of TSP Area’ vide order dated 30.03.2020. 24.2 That both the petitioners are employees of the Nigam and while being in service, have applied in pursuance of the advertisement dated 22.02.2021, for the post of Junior Engineer-I. Hence, both the petitioners admittedly belong to the in-service category. 24.3 That the said advertisement dated 22.02.2021 for recruitment on the post of Junior Engineer-I, issued by the respondents, provides for horizontal reservation for the in-service candidates. Hence, 03 seats were kept reserved for such candidates, out of which, as on date, 02 seats are already filled and the present petitions are filed qua the remaining 01 seat. 24.4 That P1 is a bonafide resident of Udaipur, but no domicile proof has been submitted vis-à-vis the fact that the area of residence of P1 is under the category of Scheduled TSP Area. The certificate, placed on record, does not specifically state that it is qua a Scheduled-TSP Area/ TSP Area. 24.5 That P1 stands on a higher merit with a score of 92.25 marks in the said examination, but has failed to furnish the mandatory TSP Area Certificate at the time of document verification and has fairly conceded to the fact that he shall be unable to provide the same in future. 25. Therefore, considering the fact that as on date, after document verification and scrutinization of the candidates, only P2 stands as the next eligible candidate, for appointment on the said post, duly possessing the requisite certificate of TSP Area. 25. 25. Therefore, considering the fact that as on date, after document verification and scrutinization of the candidates, only P2 stands as the next eligible candidate, for appointment on the said post, duly possessing the requisite certificate of TSP Area. 25. In furtherance of the foregoing, relying upon the provisions of the AVVNL Scheduled Area Engineers, Ministerial and Class-IV service (Recruitment and other service condition) Regulations, 2017, coupled with the circulars dated 16.06.2013 and 21.10.2019, this Court has drawn the following opinion: 25.1 That the prime question before this Court was that whether even after being meritorious a candidate can be considered ineligible, only for want of a particular certificate i.e. the TSP Area Certificate. 25.1.1 The explanation qua the said question lay within the provisions of the Regulation of 2017 and the advertisement dated 22.02.2021 itself. Vide Clause 11(2)(xiii) of the said advertisement, it was made clear that it shall be mandatory for any candidate to furnish a certificate/relevant document issued by the concerned Competent Authority for claiming the reservation against the vacancies reserved for TSP Area/ Saharias category, at the time of document verification. 25.1.2 In this regard, it is vital to note that who shall fall under the ambit of ‘bonafide resident’. The same has been expressly explained under the notification dated 21.10.2019, circulated with the approval of the Governor of Rajasthan. 25.1.2 In this regard, it is vital to note that who shall fall under the ambit of ‘bonafide resident’. The same has been expressly explained under the notification dated 21.10.2019, circulated with the approval of the Governor of Rajasthan. ^^jkT; Lrj vFkok ftyk Lrj ij vuqlwfpr [k.Mksa dh fjfDr;ksa ls fHkUu jkT;@ftys dh 'ks"k fjfDr;ka fo|eku fu;eksa ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds fy, 12 izfr'kr] vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds fy, 16 izfr'kr] fiNM+k oxZ dh tkfr;ksa ds fy, 21 izfr'kr ,oa vfr fiNM+k oxZ dh tkfr;ksa ds fy, 5 izfr'kr vFkok le;≤ ij izo`Rr vkj{k.k laca/kh izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vkj{k.k dh dkuwuh vis{kkvksa ds v/;/khu jgsaxhA Li"Vhdj.k & bu funsZ'kksa ds iz;kstukFkZ ^^vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vH;FkhZ^^ ls ,slk O;fDr vfHkizsr gS] tks& ¼d½ 1 tuojh] 1970 ds iwoZ ls vuqlwfpr {ks= dk ln~Hkkoh fuoklh gS( ¼[k½ ;fn mldk tUe 1 tuojh] 1970 ds ckn gqvk gS rks mlds ekrk&firk 1 tuojh] 1970 ds iwoZ ls vuqlwfpr {ks= ds ln~Hkkoh fuoklh jgs gSa vkSj og vius tUe ls vuqlwfpr {ks= dk ln~Hkkoh fuoklh gS( ;k ¼x½ mDr [k.M ¼d½;k ¼[k½ ds vUrxZr vkus okys fdlh O;fDr ls fookg }kjk lacaf/kr gS vkSj og vius fookg ds ckn ls vuqlwfpr {ks= dk ln~Hkkoh fuoklh gSA ;s funsZ'k fnukad 16-6-2013 ls izo`Rr gq, le>s tk;saxsA^^ 25.2 Hence, commenting upon point nos. 25.1.1 and 25.1.2 of this judgment, it is inferred that it is a mandatory requirement to furnish the TSP Area Certificate, issued by the Competent Authority, for consideration of a candidate for appointment on the post under the said category. 25.3 It is also evident that as per the conditions mentioned under the circulars dated 16.06.2013 and 21.10.2019, issued by the respondent-AVVNL, after the approval of the Governor, that the candidates who will be unsuccessful in submitting the requisite documents/ certificate qua the TSP Area shall not be eligible for the said appointment qua the reserved posts. 25.4 Considering the contents of Annexure-R/2/1, placed on record, under S.B. CWP No. 1991/2022, it is evident that P1 has fairly conceded to the fact that he is unable to furnish the required mandatory certificate of TSP Area, nor shall he be able to furnish the same in future. CONCLUSION 26. 25.4 Considering the contents of Annexure-R/2/1, placed on record, under S.B. CWP No. 1991/2022, it is evident that P1 has fairly conceded to the fact that he is unable to furnish the required mandatory certificate of TSP Area, nor shall he be able to furnish the same in future. CONCLUSION 26. In view of the aforesaid reasons and emphasizing on the categoric directions framed by the respondents, qua the mandatory provision/want of the TSP Area certificate, by any candidate who deems himself/herself to be meritorious under the reserved category, this Court affirms the denial/rejection of the candidature of P1 i.e. Mr. Narendra Singh Nathawat, for the nonproduction of the TSP Area Certificate. 27. Conversely, noting the fact that P2 i.e. Mr. Rahul Patidar possesses the TSP Area Certificate and is next in the merit list, he may be considered for appointment on the said post, if deemed otherwise eligible by the respondents. 28. Accordingly, for the reasons stated herein-above, S.B.CWP No. 1991/2022 titled as Narendra Singh Nathawat Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. is dismissed and S.B. CWP No. 7856/2023 titled as Rahul Patidar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. is allowed. 29. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.