A writ petition challenging the petitioner's non-selection for a Constable post was dismissed. The court found the petitioner's aggregate marks were insufficient for the category, rendering the claim of discrimination baseless.
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
PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Mr. R.D. Meena, for the petitioner. Dr. A.S. Khangarot, for the respondents.
BY THE COURT :
This petition has been filed aggrieved of the non selection of the petitioner to the post of Constable (GD) in 13th Battalion, RAC (Jail Security) Chainpura.
The case of the petitioner is that an advertisement dated 28-92012 was issued for recruitment to 907 posts of Constable (GD) in 13th Battalion, RAC (Jail Security) Chainpura, Jaipur. The petitioner made an online application in the category of SBC and was allowed to appear in the written examination held on 6-1-2013 under Roll No.49119313. It has been submitted that the petitioner was successful having obtained the requisite minimum marks in the written test. The petitioner thereupon was called for physical
2
efficiency test on 13-4-2013 and in view of his physical fitness, adequate weight, chest and height measurement passed the said test and was declared qualified. Thereafter the petitioner undertook test of running. As the petitioner had qualified physical efficiency test, he submitted his documents including the NCC 'C' certificate entitling him for 5 bonus marks as per the advertisement. Following declaration of result on the basis of physical efficiency test, bonus marks, educational qualification, in the case of petitioner his name was not included despite his purported merit. It has been submitted that persons lower in merit to the petitioner were selected by respondents in an act of gross discrimination and arbitrariness. Hence this writ petition.
Reply to writ petition has been filed. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not been selected in SBC category or for that matter in OBC category for the reason that his aggregate marks in written examination, physical efficiency test along with bonus marks awarded for the NCC 'C' certificate, worked out only to 51.4579 marks as against cut off 62.5727 for OBC and 62.2309 for SBC. It has been submitted that the petitioner in fact had sought information with regard to his aggregate marks obtained in the examination in issue, which was conveyed to him on 31-7-2013. It has been submitted that select list of various categories having been prepared and approved, appointment letters have been issued to the
3
successful candidates by the answering respondents.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
From the facts on record, it transpires that the petitioner was finally not selected as his aggregate marks subsequent to written test, physical efficiency test and awarding of bonus marks for the NCC 'C' certificate were only 51.5479 as against the cut off marks of 62.2309 in SBC category and 62.5727 in OBC category. In view of aforesaid stark fact, it is quite obvious that the writ petition is completely misdirected and founded upon the mere apprehension of having been arbitrarily overlooked. The allegation of candidates with lower aggregate marks having been appointed in the OBC/ SBC categories are bald, without specifics and obviously a desperate attempt to buttress an otherwise baseless case.
I therefore find no force in the petition. Dismissed.
arn/
4
All corrections made in the order have been incorporated in the order being emailed.
Arun Kumar Sharma, Private Secretary.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's writ petition challenging non-selection is well-founded given his aggregate marks falling below the category cutoff.
Whether the allegation of discrimination and arbitrary selection served as a sufficient basis for the petition.
Petitioner
Respondents
Allok Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
