Narendra Kumar Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with the following prayer:-

It is therefore respectfully prayed your lordships that the following relief may kindly be granted to the humble petitioner:-

(i) A writ or direction nature thereof may kindly be issued and the condition No. 11(a) of the advertisement No. 05/2018 issued by the respondent No.

2 may kindly be ordered to be declared illegal and further respondents may kindly be directed to modify the same and the 3% reservation may kindly

be extended up to the extent of physical disability arising out of vision problem too.

(ii) A writ or direction nature thereof may kindly be issued and the respondents may kindly be ordered to consider the candidature of the humble

petitioner under the category of Persons With Disability as defined under the persons with disabilities Act 1995 and if the petitioner comnes into zone

of consideration and respondents may kindly be ordered to give appointment to the humble petitioner on the post of live stock assistant.

(iii) A writ or direction nature thereof may kindly be issued and the action of the respondents by which they are not considering the candidature of the

petitioner be declared illegal, capricious and the same may be ordered to be quashed and set aside.

(iv) Any other order or relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit may also kindly be passed in favor of the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent issued an advertisement No. 05/2018 on 14.03.2018 for recruitment on the post of Live Stock

Assistant. In pursuance to it, the petitioner applied for the post of Live Stock Assistant and participated in the process of selection and result of the

selection process was declared by the respondent in January, 2019 and thereafter this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 01.05.2019

challenging the condition No. 11 (A) of the advertisement dated 14.03.2018, which reads as under:-

:-

◌ ◌

( ◌ , ) , 2011

38 (2)◌ () 27.06.2016

3 Locomotor Disability Permanent impairment

only in single lower limb, percentage between 40% to 70% Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have

wrongfully denied appointment to the petitioner by not following Rule 38 of ""Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of

Rights and Full Participation) Rules 2011.

Counsel further submits that bifurcation of vacancy under the physical handicapped category has not been properly done by the respondents and the

petitioner who is a blind candidate has not been given appointment due to condition No. 11 A mentioned in the advertisement while he is eligible for the

appointment on the post in question.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs Surendra Singh & Ors. 2019 (8) SCC 67 has held as under:-

18 From a perusal of the said Clause it is noticed that though under the very Clause there is no cut off marks specified, Clause 25 would, however,

provide the full discretion to the DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the recruitment

was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring the

maintenance of minimum standards, the DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the cut off

percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in the Advertisement No.1/2006, when the private respondents herein and the other

petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said Advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the Clause is arbitrary and might affect

their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained has been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that stage. On

the other hand, despite being aware of the Clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have participated in the

selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of approbate and

reprobate would apply and the private respondents herein or any other candidate who participated in the process cannot be heard to complain in that

regard.

Admittedly the petitioner has filed this writ petition after having been declared unsuccessful in the process of selection. In my considered view the writ

petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed in view of the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Municipal

Corporation of Delhi Vs Surendra Singh & Ors. (supra).

Hence, this writ petition is dismissed.