Allowed

Prabhati Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Mar 2018CW/3395/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur disposed of the petitioner's writ petition for appointment as a teacher in the Physically Handicapped (BL/LV) category by following the precedent set in Mohammed Farhan Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 11382/2017) decided on 08.01.2017.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed with costs; respondents directed to comply with instructions in Mohammed Farhan regarding interchange of physically handicapped candidates.

Prabhati Ram Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3395 / 2018

¶3

Prabhati Ram S/o Shri Ratti Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Bedoj, Tehsil Ramgarh, Post Piproli, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District- Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶9

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶10

The District Establishment Committee Through Its Chairman, Zila Parishad Alwar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶11

The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Kailash Jangid

¶14

For Respondent(s) : Ms.Swati Katoch for Mr.S.S.Ladrecha AAG

¶15

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶16

Order

¶17

08/03/2018

¶18

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

¶19

of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

¶20

“A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying the candidature of the petitioner for his selection and appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level II) English against the available post

¶21

(2 of 4)

¶22

[CW-3395/2018]

¶23

of Physically handicapped (BL/LV) category in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2013 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶24

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level II) English against the category of Physically Handicapped (BL/LV) as per his merit status on account of non-availability of the candidates in the Zila Parishad, Alwar in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2013.

¶25

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process while consider his candidature against the available post of Physically Handicapped (BL/LV) Category for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level II) English in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2013

¶26

D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to afford the petitioner appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III (Level II) English in his respective category against the available one post of Physically Handicapped (BL/LV) with all consequential benefits in pursuance of the advertisement year 2013 if otherwise she stands in merit.

¶27

E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

¶28

F. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”

¶29

2 . Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the controversy is squarely covered by the judgment passed by

¶30

(3 of 4)

¶31

[CW-3395/2018]

¶32

this Court in Mohammed Farhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 11382/2017) , decided on 08.01.2017, relevant portion of which reads as under:-

¶33

“12. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the mandate laid down in Section 36 of the Act of 1995 is conclusive and each precedent law requires the respondent to operate the clear mandate given in Section 33 and 36. Thus, the respondents are directed that the persons of Blindness / Low Vision, Hearing Impairment and Locomotive disability or Cerebral palsy shall be appropriately considered in the 3% seats reserved for them in their own category and in case, such post remained unfilled in the similar recruitment in 2012 then Section 36 shall be operated and respondents shall fill the carried forward seats by inter-changing the candidates of these three disabilities mentioned in Section 33 of the Act of 1995. The respondents shall be required to do the following :-

¶34

A. Determine the total vacancies of physically handicapped which are 3% in the recruitment of 2012 and give the exact details of the reservation implemented in 2012 in the subcategories mentioned in Section 33 of the Act of 1995.

¶35

B. Whatever seats of disabled persons due to non-availability of respective category of candidates from 2012 which were not filled by their respective categories, the same number of seats shall be filled in 2013, by the respondents by inter-changing the respective categories in the spirit of Section 36 of the Act of 1995.

¶36

13. Further, the 2013 physically handicapped candidates shall be given appointment in their respective categories as per the Section 33 but if the seats remained unfilled in the 2012 recruitment then the inter-change shall be permissible for the respondents to make the necessary recruitment to the same number of seats unfilled in accordance with Section 36 of the Act of 1995 in 2013 recruitment. The respondents shall be required to demarcate exact number of seats @ 3% of the total number of seats which

¶37

(4 of 4)

¶38

[CW-3395/2018]

¶39

are recruited and are being recruited for the year 2012 and 2013 and take the decision strictly in terms of Section 33 and 36. It is further made clear that the respondents shall be required to give effect to the legislative intentions in the Section 36 of the Act of 1995 and permit interchange amongst the physically handicapped candidates. In case, the particular category of physical handicapped persons is not available and in case the same was also not available in the previous recruitment year on account of the particular physical handicap person being not available then such inter-change between the physically handicapped persons shall be legally determined and implemented by the respondents within a period of 3 moths from today for the recruitment year 2013.

¶40

14. On the aforesaid consideration, if seats of physically handicapped persons are found vacant for the year 2013 which could not be filled by their respective categories in 2012, then the petitioners shall be given appointment appropriately in accordance with their merit by giving effect to the inter-change amongst the physically handicapped persons.

¶41

15. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. ”

¶42

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms and the respondents are directed to comply with the instructions mentioned in the aforequoted precedent law for the consideration qua the petitioner also.

¶43

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.

¶44

Skant/-

Prabhati Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabhati Ram v. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases