Dismissed

Harveer Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Mar 2014CW/2560/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his candidature for a Teaching post. He sought declaration of his BST course result, claiming eligibility for time relaxation. The Court held that the recruitment process was concluded before his qualification was declared, so he lacked eligibility on the application deadline date, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Harveer Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2560 of 2005

¶5

Harveer Singh

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶8

Date of Order :: 20^th March, 2014

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶10

None present for petitioner. Mr.Parikshit Singh, Dy.G.C., for state-respondents. Mr.S.N. Kumawat for respondent-Commission.

¶11

<><><>

¶12

BY THE COURT :

¶13

None is present on behalf of the petitioner and no request for adjournment has been made.

¶14

I have heard learned counsel, Mr. Parikshit Singh, Dy.G.C., for state-respondents and learned counsel, Mr.S.N. Kumawat, for respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'Commission').

¶15

The petitioner has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s):-

¶16

“It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Hon'ble Court may kindly accept and allow this writ petition and be pleased to pass appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof whereby:-

¶17

i. the respondent No.4 be directed to immediately declare result of IInd year B.S.T. Course 2003-04

¶18

¶19

including that of petitioner.

¶20

ii. the respondent No.1 to 3 be directed not to reject or cancel candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher grade-III in pursuance to the advertisement dated 2.6.2004, and to wait till the result is declared as prayed in i) prayer hereinabove, because the petitioner has been declared successful in the School Teacher Exam-204 conducted by the respondent No.2.

¶21

iii. the respondents be directed to wait for result of IInd year B.S.T. Course 2003-04 of the petitioner and other similarly situated candidates because the petitioner and other candidates have already been allowed by them to appear in the School Teacher Exam2004 by giving relaxation to them earlier OR in the alternate the respondent No.4 be directed to declare provisional result of the petitioner.

¶22

iv. Any other relief which Hon'ble Court finds just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. v. The cost of the litigation be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶23

Briefly, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised in the instant writ application are: that the petitioner, in response to advertisement dated 2^nd June, 2004, inviting applications from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher Grade-III, submitted his application for consideration of his candidature. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that in view of the relaxation accorded in favour of the widow and divorced ladies, to pass BSTC/B.Ed. Examination within three years from the date of their appointment, he too is entitled for the same relaxation. The petitioner sought admission to the BST Course in

¶24

¶25

the academic session 2002-03, but could not successfully complete the course within two years. However, the petitioner was eligible to participate in the selection process in response to advertisement dated 2^nd June, 2004 and was declared successful. The petitioner could not complete the 2^nd year BST Course successfully, as the result was not declared by the state-respondents and for that the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. It is not disputed that the last date for receipt of application, in response to advertisement dated 2^nd June, 2004, was 5^th July, 2004, which was extended to 15^th July, 2004. The written examination was conducted on 12^th September, 2004 and the result was declared on 5^th January, 2005. Final selection list, prepared by the respondent-Commission, was forwarded to the Government on 11^th February, 2005. The result of 2^nd year BST Course of the petitioner was declared on 21^st April, 2005.

¶26

It is in this backdrop of the facts that the petitioner has prayed for a direction to the state-respondents to declare the result of the 2^nd year BST Course for academic session 2003-04 immediately, and in the alternative, has prayed for a direction, not to reject his candidature, in response to the advertisement dated 2^nd June, 2004 for want of declaration of the result.

¶27

From a glance of the undisputed facts, it is evident that the recruitment process in response to the advertisement dated 2^nd June, 2004 was finally concluded on 11^th February, 2005, in view of

¶28

¶29

the seniority list drawn and recommendations made by the respondent Commission on 11^th February, 2005 for appointment of the successful candidates. Since the result of the petitioner was declared on 21^st April, 2005, there is no element of any doubt that the application submitted by the petitioner, for consideration of his candidature, in response to advertisement dated 2^nd June, 2004; was not eligible on the last date i.e. 15^th July, 2004.

¶30

In view of the undisputed factual matrix, it is evident that the petitioner was not in possession of the educational qualifications on the last date of submission of the application i.e. 15^th July, 2004. Moreover, as a result of conclusion of the recruitment process, final seniority list was drawn on 11^th of February, 2005 and the recommendations were made for appointment of the successful candidates on 2^nd March, 2005 onwards. Therefore, the action of the respondents cannot be faulted.

¶31

For the reasons and discussions herein above, I do not find any substance in the writ application, which lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.

¶32

No costs.

¶33

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA), J.

¶34

Sunil/P.A.

¶35

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶36

(Sunil Solanki) P.A.

Harveer Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Harveer Singh v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hajari Lal Vs Judge Labour Court Ajmer andORS

Bechan Ram Vs Raj Small Scale Industries Ltd.

Asstt Regional Manager Riico B Vs Gokul Chand and Ors.

Shamim Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shuchi Jain Vs R R v P N L and Anr.

Mahaveer Singh Kulriya Vs State