Dismissed

Rinku Lal Gupta and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC14 May 2014CW/771/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed two writ petitions challenging the appointment of Live Stock Assistant candidates. The petitioners alleged that the State exceeded OBC reservation limits. The Court found no substance in the allegations, noting that appointments accorded merit-based selection without reservation relaxation.

What did the court decide?

The writ applications were dismissed; no order as to costs.

Rinku Lal Gupta and Ors. Vs State of Raj… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

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

¶3

O R D E R

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1434/2004 Abhijat Mehrishi & Anr. Vs. The State of Raj. & Anr.

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.771/2004

¶6

Rinku Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.

¶7

Date of Order :::: 14.05.2014

¶8

PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶9

None present, for the petitioners. Mr. Arpit Srivastava, Dy.G.C., for the Staterespondents.

¶10

¶11

None appears on behalf of the petitioners.

¶12

The petitioners, in the instant writ application, have approached this Court alleging that the Staterespondents exceeded the reservation limit of OBC category candidates while conducting recruitment to the post of Live Stock Assistant, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 9^th September, 2003, against 500 posts/vacancies, and therefore, prayed for the following relief(s):

¶13

“(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned action of the respondent No.1 and 2 exceeding the reservation limit of OBC candidate may be quashed and set aside.

¶14

¶15

(ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction may be pleased to direct respondents to fulfill 255 seats of general candidates and petitioners may be appointed on the post of Pashudhan Sahayak.

¶16

(iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be awarded in favour of the petitioner. (iv) That cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the petitioner.”

¶17

Briefly, the indispensable material facts and particulars, necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised in the instant writ applications needs to be outlined first. The petitioners submitted their applications for consideration of their candidature for appointment to the post of Live Stock Assistant (Pashudhan Sahayak), in response to the advertisement dated 9^th September, 2003, inviting the applications from the eligible candidates for appointment against 500 posts. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that the State-respondents exceeded the reservation limit for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category candidates since 105 vacancies were to be filled up from the amongst candidates belonging to the OBC category whereas

¶18

¶19

207 candidates were accorded appointment and, therefore, assailed the entire selection process as illegal and arbitrary.

¶20

In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter affidavit-reply in SBCWP No. 771/2004 (Rinku Lal Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.). The respondents in their counter affidavit repelling the contents have specifically pleaded that the allegations of exceeding the reservation limit, with reference to the appointment of OBC candidates, in the selection process involved, are absolutely baseless and contrary to the factual matrix. It is further pleaded that the reservation accorded to the the OBC candidates, in the recruitment process, was 105 whereas in fact only 78 candidates have been accorded appointment against the vacancies reserved for OBC candidates. Furthermore, 129 candidates, who have been accorded appointment, belonging to the OBC category, on the posts were higher in their merit position in General Category.

¶21

¶22

Thus, a total number of 207 candidates, belonging to the OBC category for appointment, were duly selected.

¶23

I have heard the learned counsel for the Staterespondents and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

The learned Dy. Govt. Counsel, supporting action the State-respondents, reiterated the pleaded facts of the reply and submitted that only 78 candidates were accorded appointment against reserved vacancies to the extent of 105 for the OBC, in the recruitment process involved. The candidates, though belonging to the OBC category, who were higher in merit, were considered and accorded appointment, without any relaxation for they belonging to the OBC category, and therefore, their appointment cannot be considered as appointment against the reservation quota meant for OBC category candidates. The learned counsel would further submit that the writ petitioners are those who stood far below in the merit of General Category.

¶25

¶26

For the reasons and discussions herein above, I

¶27

do not find any substance in the writ applications and the same are hereby dismissed.

¶28

No order as to costs.

¶29

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA)J.

¶30

Pcg

¶31

All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/oder being emailed. P.C.Gupta, Sr.P.A.

Rinku Lal Gupta and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rinku Lal Gupta and Ors. v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr Anita Chaudhary and Ors. Vs R P S C Ajmer

Suman Bhupesh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt Niyati Bose Vs Raj Non-Govt.Ed.Inst.Tribunal

Vijesh Kumar Vs Director, Technical Education

Smt Meeta Majumdar Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.