Giriraj Kumar Gaur vs State of Rajasthan

We have heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Soni, petitioner No. 2, Shri Bhomraj Nagar, petitioner No. 3, Shri Hansraj Nagar, petitioner No. 5, Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, petitioner No. 8, and Shri Dhanraj Sharma, petitioner No. 11, appearing in person. They also represent those petitioners who are not present.

Shri Rakesh Kumar Pareek, Additional District Education Officer(Legal) appears for the respondents.

By this writ petition, the petitioners seeking employment as Physical Training Instructor(Grade-III), have challenged the selections held in the year 2003 on the ground that in the selections, preparation of merit list at district level should be set aside, and that the merit list should be prepared at State level by taking one and the same criteria for judging the merit of the candidates considering their proficiency in sports, scouting and/or NCC. They have further prayed that the respondents be directed to provide reservation to the OBC category candidates, in view of the reservation policy and the advertisement, and that Section B of the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 (for short, ''the Rules of 1971''), be declared to be arbitrary and unconstitutional.

It is submitted that the selections made district-wise had deprived the fair chances of selection of the petitioners. Some of the candidates were selected in more than one district. The criteria for selection was not uniformly adopted, and that the policy of reservation for OBC candidates was not followed.

It is submitted that the petitioners had applied and had participated in the selection. There names were not found in the select list, on which they had challenged the selections including the Rule of 1971 providing for district-wise selections.

The advertisement for recruitment of PTI(Grade-III) under the Rules of 1971 was made in the year 2003. The Rules provided for District Education Officer to be the appointing authority. Section B of the Schedule appended to the Rules of 1971 provides for a selection committee headed by the District Education Officer as its chairman with the District Education Officer(Girls), and District Education Officer (Elementary) and the concerned Range Officer(Male), and the nominee of the principal of the school as the other members. Under the then prevalent policy of the State Government, the selections in which the District Education Officer was the appointing authority, were to be made district-wise.

So far as the reservation is concerned, in paragraph 11 of the reply, it is stated that the OBC quota was full in Baran District and, therefore, no vacancy falling in OBC category was advertised.

We are informed by Shri Rakesh Kumar Pareek, the Additional District Education Officer(Legal) that the selections of the year 2003 were completed long ago and that the appointees are working for last more than 10 years. In the year 2008, the State Government changed the policy and handed over the selections to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The selections of the year 2008 and thereafter in 2011 were held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and have since been completed.

We do not find any illegality in the selections held in the year 2003, nor any good ground has been made to challenge the Rules providing for the District Education Officer as selection committee. Under the then prevalent policy of the State Government, the selections in accordance with the Rules were held by a selection committee, of which the District Education Officer(Boys) is the chairman. The State Government had changed the policy and handed over the selections in the year 2008 and thereafter in the year 2011 to the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.

We further find that none of the selected candidates was impleaded as party respondents, who may have contested the matter for himself or on behalf of other selected candidates, or any selected candidate as their representative, the challenge to the selections is not maintainable.

There is no illegality in the selections held in the year 2003, of which the selectees are now working for more than 10 years. In absence of impleadment of any selected candidates or their representative, the writ petition was not maintainable, when it was filed.

The writ petition is dismissed.