Petitioner sought reservation for Accountant post under a Central Government scheme. Court dismissed the writ petition noting no substantive appointment was made and no documentary evidence of reservation provisions existed, rejecting directions issued five years later.
Writ petition dismissed; no direction issued to respondents.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5939/2008 (leram Bhati Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.)
Date of Order : 14.05.2013
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
Mr. V.K. Mathur, for the petitioner. Mr. Yashpal Khileree, Dy. Govt. Counsel.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming reservation in respective categories for appointment being made on the post of Accountant in pursuance of advertisement dated 21.11.2007.
Admittedly, the petitioner is claiming reservation in a scheme which is said to be formulated by the Central Government in which the State Government has been assigned to provide appointment on different posts.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of providing appointment in the scheme, the respondents are under obligation to provide reservation and it has not been provided, therefore, totally illegal action has been taken by the respondents contravening the constitutional provision. It is also submitted that for the said post reservation is provided by the respondents, therefore, obviously, denial of reservation to the petitioner for the post in question in a scheme is illegal,
2
therefore, it is submitted that the respondents may be directed to provide reservation and consider the candidature of the petitioner in pursuance of advertisement issued in the year 2008.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that first of all no direction can be given at this stage because the petitioner is claiming his right of consideration against the reservation in the advertisement issued in the year 2008 in which he participated and the appointments have already been made. Further, learned counsel for the respondents submits that State Government is under obligation to follow the guidelines issued by the Central Government for providing appointment. It is nowhere stated in the writ petition that directions were issued by the Central Government for providing reservation for which the petitioner is claiming appointment to provide reservation. In absence of any provision of law and any guidelines from the Central Government and upon the fact that the petitioner is claiming appointment in a scheme known as NRHM, therefore, there is no question for granting any relief to the petitioner with regard to reservation.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is no force in this writ petition because no substantive appointment has been made in pursuance of the advertisement nor the said advertisement was issued in pursuance of any
3
service rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that petitioner is claiming appointment on the basis of reservation in pursuance of advertisement dated 3.7.2008 which is issued by the respondents in pursuance of a scheme formulated by the Central Government. It is not proper to issue direction to the respondents to provide reservation after five years in the scheme. Further, no documentary evidence has been placed on record to show that any provisions is in existence for providing reservation in appointment in the scheme. Admittedly, the appointments were made in a scheme and those appointments come to an end after expiry of the scheme, therefore, when no substantive right is created in favor of the petitioner, then, no direction can be issued to the respondents. Hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas), J.
arun
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the respondents can be directed to provide reservation for the post of Accountant in a Central Government scheme where no substantive appointment was made.
Whether any substantive right to reservation was created in favor of the petitioner under the specified scheme.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Leram Bhati
State of Raj.
Gopal Krishan Vyas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
