The single judge rejected a writ petition challenging the rejection of a posting preference. holding that appointments must follow merit position within the candidate's specific reservation category, citing a Supreme Court precedent.
The writ petition challenging the rejection of the petitioner's posting representation was dismissed.
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 JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12323/2015
Anil Kumar
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
DATE OF ORDER : 06/10/2015 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI
Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, for petitioner
By this petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 18th March, 2015, whereby representation made by the petitioner was rejected.
Learned counsel submits that while making posting, the respondents made reservation though not permissible. The posting should have been given strictly in order of merit irrespective of caste and category. The petitioner is one who stood higher in merit but denied posting in the District to which he had given preference. In view of above, impugned order dated 18th March, 2015 may be quashed with the direction to the respondents to post the petitioner on the post of Senior Teacher (English) in Churu Division.
I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
It is a case where in pursuance to the advertisement dated 2nd August, 2013, selection to the post of Senior Teacher Gr.II was made followed by order of appointment in Jodhpur Division. The petitioner
2
joined the post in pursuance to it however made a representation that he should have been given posting in Churu Division. The representation aforesaid was rejected by a speaking order. It has been clarified that no candidate lower in merit than petitioner in his category has been given posting in Churu Division. All those who are having lower merit position belong to other reserve caste. The aforesaid is taken by the petitioner to be reservation for the posting, which infact is not. The appointments are given in order of merit of different category. The candidates selected in reserve category are arranged in order of merit in their category. Looking to their merit position for appointment, option for posting is considered. It goes with the merit position to the candidate in his own category.
In the case of petitioner, he was lower in his own category thus his choice for posting in Churu Division could not be accepted. The fact aforesaid has been clarified by the respondents in the order dated 18th March, 2015. The preference for posting cannot be decided ignoring merit position of the candidate. When merit position is to be considered, it has to be as per category to which petitioner belongs. If argument of learned counsel for petitioner is accepted that posting should be irrespective of category then candidates of general caste, find place higher in merit, as compared to the reserve caste would occupy all the posts as per their choice of place, leaving reserve caste category which has been offered appointment as per their merit
3
position in their own category. In the background aforesaid, I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents and otherwise issue as to whether reservation can be provided in posting has been answered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India
Vs. Rajiv Yadav, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 38 . Therein, judgment of Delhi High Court was reversed where reservation in posting in the
IAS cadre was held to be illegal.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
[M.N.BHANDARI], J.
FRBOHRA
Certificate:
“All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.”
FATEH RAJ BOHRA, Sr. P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the rejection of the petitioner's representation for posting in Churu Division was illegal given he was lower in merit within his category.
Whether reservation can be provided in employment postings to appoint candidates irrespective of their category-wise merit position.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Union of India Vs. Rajiv YadavReferred¶17
Union of India Vs. Rajiv Yadav, reported in (1994) 6 SCC 38 · Who else cites this
Anil Kumar
State of Rajasthan
M.N. Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
