Dismissed

Dilip Kumar v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC26 Nov 2018CW/3140/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging the denial of appointment to a TSP(SC) candidate. The Court upheld the State's calculation of 44 reserved posts based on population ratios within the TSP area, rejecting the argument for additional posts based on aggregate reservation percentages.

What did the court decide?

None. The writ petition was dismissed as the State's calculation was upheld.

Dilip Kumar Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 3140/2016

¶3

Dilip Kumar S/o Sh. Lalu Ji, aged about 36 years, R/o 8/132, Near A.D. School, Khandu Colony, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of Medical & Health, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. Director, Medical & Health Services, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

Additional Director (Admn.), Medical & Health Services, Govt. of Rajasthan Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶10

: Mr. Keshav Bhati. : Mr. Rishab Tayal for Mr. K.L. Thakur, AAG.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶12

26/11/2018

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to accord reservation to the TSP(SC) candidates in pursuance of the notification dated 16.6.2013 (Annex.8) and thereafter, accord appointment to the petitioner on his merit.

¶14

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that advertisement for the post of Nurse Gr.II was issued by the respondents, wherein, after varying the total number of posts twice, the total posts 12259 remained. As per the list of successful candidates published by the respondents, the appointment was given to 44 candidates belonging to TSP(SC) category.

¶15

It is inter alia claimed that if proper reservation is calculated i.e. 16% for SC candidates and thereafter 5% for TSP(SC) candidates, total number of posts would be 90 and as the petitioners have only granted 44 posts, the action of the

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-3140/2016]

¶18

respondents in not according another 46 posts to the candidates belonging to TSP(SC) cannot be sustained.

¶19

Though reply to the writ petition was earlier filed by the State, as the same did not answer the issue raised by the petitioner, an additional affidavit has been filed indicating the formula by which 44 posts have been arrived at. It is inter alia indicated that at the relevant time notification dated 12.9.2007 and notification dated 16.6.2013 were in vogue, which provided for reservation of TSP category in proportion to the total population of TSP area in relation to the population of the State and based on the said calculation 5% was to be reserved for Scheduled Caste category which has been done according to the said provision by which only 44 posts fall in the category of TSP(SC) and, therefore, the plea raised by the petitioner has no substance.

¶20

However, submission has been made that as the respondents have deducted 100 posts on account of various orders passed by the High Court, even if the said posts are calculated only one posts would increase for TSP(SC) candidates and there are at least 4 persons who are higher in merit than the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner has no case.

¶21

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

¶22

A bare look at the notification dated 12.9.2007 issued under the provisions of Article 244(1) of the Constitution of India reads as under:-

¶23

“3. tgka HkrhZ jkT; Lrj ij dh tkrh gks vkSj fjfDr;ksa dk vo/kkj.k rFkk mudh lax.kuk Hkh jkT; Lrj ij dh tkrh

¶24

(3 of 4) [CW-3140/2016]

¶25

gks ogka vuqlwfpr {ks= ds fy, fjfDr;ka izdfYir :i ls ml vuqikr ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tk,xh tks jkT; ds vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vuqlwfpr [k.Mks dh dqy tula[;k dk jkT; dh dqy tula[;k ds lkFk gSA bl izdkj izdfYir :i ls vo/kkfjr fjfDr;ksa dh 45 izfr’kr fjfDr;k a vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ds ,oa 5 izfr’kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds Lfkkuh; lnL;ksa ls Hkjh tk,xhA”

¶26

The said notification has been subsequently superseded by another notification dated 16.6.2013 and 4.7.2016, wherein, the said provision has been retained. The above provisions are very specific, which provides for determination of posts reserved for TSP based on the proportion of population of the TSP to the total population of the State based on such calculation 5% of the total posts, were required to be reserved for SC candidates, the respondents in their affidavit has indicated the following calculation:-

¶27

Total Posts	11259
Posts reserved under various orders of Hon’ble High Court	100
Remaining posts(11259-100)	11159
Ratio of population of TSP area against the population of State as per clause 03 of circular dated 12.09.2007	7.99%
Total number of posts for the TSP area as per ratio ofpopulation	11159 x 7.99 / 100 = 891posts
Total number of posts reserved for TSP ST candidates	891 x 45 / 100 = 400posts
Total posts reserved for TSP SC candidates	891 x 5 / 100 = 44 posts

¶28

As per the above calculation, the total posts for TSP (SC) comes to 44 only and admittedly the respondents have granted appointment to 44 candidates belonging to TSP(SC).

¶29

(4 of 4)

¶30

[CW-3140/2016]

¶31

So far as the submission made pertaining to deduction of 100 posts on account of various orders passed by the High Court is concerned, there is no substance in the submission made. Even if the said posts are also included for providing reservation only one post for TSP(SC) would increase, whereas at least four more candidates are above the petitioner in merit, as such the petitioner has no cause.

¶32

In view of the above fact situation, the claim based by the petitioner seeking 16% reservation for SC and then 5 % for TSP in the writ petition cannot be countenanced.

¶33

There is no substance in the writ petition, the same is,

¶34

therefore, dismissed.

¶35

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶36

1-Sumit/-

Dilip Kumar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Singh Bhati Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Bhudev Sharma Vs the M.D. Rsrtc and Anr.

Roop Lal Damor Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Murari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Durga Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Kalu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.