Suresh Dangi vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

By the instant writ petition, petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to extend him benefits of Backward Class category as per Clause 10(5) of Advertisement (Annex-1) and has further sought a direction to appoint him on the post of Junior Accountant pursuant to said advertisement.

Precisely stated, the facts of the case are that respondents issued the aforesaid advertisement for making recruitment on various posts including the post of Junior Accountant and pursuant thereto petitioner applied as candidate belonging to Backward Class of TSP Area for the post of Junior Accountant. The petitioner was permitted to participate in selection process and on completion of selection process, he was called for document verification. Relying on the advertisement, which does not envisage reservation for Backward Class category in TSP Area, he was not offered appointment to the post in question. As a matter of fact, the petitioner secured less than minimum passing marks as per Clause 5 of the advertisement (Annex.1), which envisages 30% marks. It is an admitted position that petitioner secured 23.44% marks in part/phase 'B' examination. The advertisement clarifies about non reservation amongst Junior Accountants so far as Backward Class category is concerned, and therefore, the parameters and yardsticks for adjudging suitability of the petitioner was applied in terms of General/Unreserved category. Not providing reservation in Backward Class category amongst posts of Junior Accountant in TSP Area has not been challenged by the petitioner in writ petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has placed reliance on the judgments of this Court in Vijay Raj Anjana Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr., Dinesh Chandra Suthar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. and Rajesh Kumar Patidar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.4163/2017, 10994/2017 and 10981/2017, respectively).

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, for substantiating his arguments, has relied on a judgment of this Court dated 25.10.2018, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14892/2018, which has been affirmed by a Division Bench on 19.12.2018.

Upon examining the matter in its entirety, in conjunction with the advertisement issued by respondents and the averments made in reply, there remains no quarrel that although the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant as Backward Class category candidate in TSP Area, but the advertisement nowhere envisages reservation for Backward Class category in TSP Area. That being the situation, his candidature was considered in Unreserved Category and for the reason that he has not secured minimum passing marks in part/phase 'B' examination, he was non-suited by the respondents. The judgments, on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance, in my considered opinion, cannot render any assistance to his cause, more particularly, in the wake of the fact that he has not laid any challenge to the terms and conditions of advertisement. It is also an admitted position that in part/phase 'B' examination, he has not secured minimum percentage of marks, as has been prescribed in the advertisement for Unreserved category.

In view thereof, no case of interference is made out. Consequently, the writ petition fails and same is, hereby, rejected. The stay petition is also rejected.