Allowed

Santosh Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2018CW/15836/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, the High Court directed state authorities to appoint a petitioner to the post of Constable Band. The court held that the advertised posts were not explicitly reserved for males, and the challenge to her eligibility was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner appointed to post of Constable Band subject to further verification and medical tests; monetary benefits from appointment date.

Santosh Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15836/2018

¶3

Santosh Kanwar D/o Shri Jabbar Singh, Aged About 23 Years, By Cast Rajput, C-36/42, Police Line, Ratanada, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶8

Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner

¶9

Superintendent Of Police, Pali

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.K. Poonia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha for Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

10/12/2018

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accord appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the final select list dated 19.09.2018 (Annexure-4) on the post of Constable Band.

¶16

It is, inter alia, indicated that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 petitioner applied for the post of Constable Band for District Pali, wherein, two posts – one in General Category and one reserved for OBC was advertised.

¶17

Pursuant to the selection process undertaken by the respondents, the result was published on 19.09.2018 (Annexure-

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[CW-15836/2018]

¶20

4), wherein, for the post of Constable Band the petitioner was placed at S.No. 1 for district Pali.

¶21

It is submitted that pursuant to the final select list (Annexure-4) respondents called the petitioner for document verification and for medical on 24.09.2018, the petitioner appeared for the said purpose, wherein, though the documents were checked, the petitioner was not subjected to medical examination purportedly on the ground that post was meant for male candidate and petitioner could not be accorded appointment.

¶22

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that action of the respondents in denying appointment to the petitioner is not justified, inasmuch as, as per the procedure prescribed in the advertisement, the petitioner has undergone the various tests, wherein, in the select list published by the respondents, the petitioner has been placed at S.No. 1 and being the only eligible candidate for grant of appointment, there was no reason for the respondents to deny such an appointment and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained.

¶23

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that the concerned authority was asked to sent the list of vacant post and qua the list of Constable Band in district Pali, the vacant position indicated was for one male candidate in general and OBC category each and on account of such indication made, the petitioner could not be granted appointment.

¶24

It is further submitted that on account of selection of the petitioner the selection board was approached for correcting the same to bring the same in sync with the vacancy indicated i.e. for

¶25

(3 of 4)

¶26

[CW-15836/2018]

¶27

male candidate and, therefore, the petitioner could not be accorded appointment.

¶28

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶29

A bare look at the advertisement indicates that the respondents have advertised post of Constable Band for district Pali, one in general category and another reserved for OBC category. There is no indication regarding the same meant for a male candidate. It is surprising that the respondents have taken a stand that the post was meant for a male candidate. It is settled that apparently there cannot be any reservation for male candidates and it is not the case of the respondents that the post of Constable Band can only be manned by male candidate.

¶30

In view thereof, the indication made while giving out the vacant positions that the post was meant for male candidate itself is baseless. Even if post has been indicated for male candidate in the vacancy list, the same could have been filled up by eligible meritorious female candidates and, therefore, the action of the respondents in denying the appointment to the petitioner and seeking the selection board to change the merit list cannot be sustained.

¶31

Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The respondents are directed to subject the petitioner to document verification (if not already done) and to medical test, as prescribed and if the petitioner is otherwise found eligible, she be accorded appointment in terms of the final select list (Annexure-4) for the post of Constable Band from the date the appointment has been given to Charanjeet S/o Krishan Lal, who was also selected alongwith the petitioner.

¶32

(4 of 4)

¶33

[CW-15836/2018]

¶34

Needful may be done within a period of three weeks from today. However, the petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits from the date of appointment.

¶35

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶36

16-AK Chouhan/-

Santosh Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Santosh Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan

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

Bharat Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Chief Eng. Water Resources and Ors. Vs Narendra Kumar

Madan Lal Dhobi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Salim Khan Pathan Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Babu Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Devi Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan