Ishwar Singh Chouhan And Ors vs State And Ors

Arun Monga, J

Petitioners herein are before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to modify the result of the Special Constable Recruitment, 2016 for TSP and Urban (Saharia) candidates by removing those candidates from the General category list who have availed age relaxation under their respective reserved categories. Further, the petitioners seek directions to fill the vacant seats reserved for General women candidates with General male candidates.

Briefly speaking, relevant facts as pleaded in the petition are as follows:

2.1. Respondents issued an advertisement dated 10/02/2016 for the post of Special Constable for TSP and Urban (Saharia) candidates. As per the advertisement, and according to the provisions of Part-III of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, online application forms were invited for the post of General Constable and Constable Driver for 742 vacancies in pursuance of the vacant posts for Constable Recruitment, 2013. The calculation for vacant posts for appointment, qualifications, eligibility, etc., is described in detail by the Police Headquarters in its Standing Order No. 01/2016 dated 14/01/2016.

2.2. As per the advertisement dated 10/02/2016, Clause 5, Note- 1, the unreserved posts for the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) can be filled only by local residents. Being eligible for the Special Constable Recruitment, 2016, for TSP and Urban (Saharia) candidates, and being from the Tribal Sub Plan area as local residents, the petitioners applied for the examination.

2.3. The Office of the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, issued a Standing Order No. 01/2016 dated 14/01/2016. In this Standing Order, the procedure for Special Constable Recruitment for TSP and Urban (Saharia) candidates was published.

2.4. As per Clause 1 of Standing Order No. 01/2016, the posts that remained vacant and were reserved for Urban (Saharia) candidates of Baran District (reservation made as per Government of Rajasthan notification No. P-13 (20) Karmic/d-2/91 part dated 21/05/2013) and TSP area candidates (reservation made as per Government of Rajasthan notification No. F-13(20) DOP/A-II/91/Part dated 16/06/2013) will be included by the concerned Appointment Authorities in the special recruitment for TSP and Urban (Saharia) vacancies.

2.5. The respondent department conducted the written examination on 21/08/2016 and declared the result of the written examination. All the petitioners were selected in the written examination. The respondent department issued Admit Cards to the petitioners for the physical test to be conducted on 28/02/2017. They participated in the physical test conducted on 28/02/2017 and were found eligible in the physical test.

2.6. The respondent department declared the result of the Special Constable Recruitment, 2016, for TSP and Urban (Saharia) candidates. The said result was in violation of the general guidelines of the Court, which prohibit granting double benefits to candidates. Specifically, if a candidate has already received a benefit in one category, their candidature cannot be considered in the general category or any other category. Some candidates received the age benefit in their respective categories (SC/ST) and were only eligible to participate in those categories. However, the respondent department declared some of these candidates successful in the general category, thereby violating the guidelines of the Court.

2.7. The respondent department acted contrary to their own notification dated 10/02/2016. According to Clause 6(ka) of the notification, reservations for women are to be provided according to their category, with 30% of seats reserved for women in each category. The reservation is to be given horizontally and category-wise. If the seats for women candidates remain vacant in a particular category, they are to be filled by male candidates from the same category. The respondent department, however, filled the posts for general women with women from reserved categories, instead of filling them with general male candidates.

2.8. In the general category, 61 seats were reserved for women, but only 14 women from the general category were found suitable for recruitment to the post. The remaining seats were filled with women from other categories. Hence, this petition.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.

The sum and substance of the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners is that, since women from the general category were not available, the posts that remained vacant for them ought to have been filled by male candidates from the general category.

I am unable to persuade myself with the insipidity of the argument of counsel for the petitioners. What must be seen herein is that all the posts were advertised with a vertical division between male and female candidates. The intent of creating this vertical division was to fill the female category posts with females, regardless of the horizontal reservation provided to them. Since an adequate number of female candidates from the general category were not available, the respondents rightfully adopted the approach of recruiting for the unfilled posts in the general category by diverting them to the female (SC) category.

Had it been the case that no female candidates were available, regardless of category, then only male candidates would have staked their claim on the posts. Since this is not the case, no grounds for interference have been made out.

Dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.