Dismissed

Madhav Singh Mehru v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Rajasthan HC14 Sept 2018SAW/806/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed the Special Appeal filed by an appellant seeking appointment as a Teacher under the reserved category of 'Sportsperson'. The Court held that the relevant service rules did not provide for such reservation and the Constitutional amendment did not extend to the specific rules governing the appellant's post. Consequently, the appeal was rejected as devoid of merit.

What did the court decide?

None. The Special Appeal was dismissed, upholding the dismissal of the Writ Petition.

Madhav Singh Mehru Vs State of Rajasthan… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 806/2018

¶3

Madhav Singh Mehru Son Of Karni Dan Mehru, Resident Of House No. 206, Gali No.5, B.J.S. Colony, Jodhpur Rajasthan.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through- The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s)

: Mr. Mohammad Arif

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

14/09/2018

¶14

This Special Appeal is directed against order dated 17.2.18 of the learned Single Judge of this court, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant seeking directions to the respondents to consider his candidature for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.II pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.7.16 issued by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) under the reserved category of ‘Sportsperson’ has been dismissed.

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[SAW-806/2018]

¶17

The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge inter alia observing that there is no reservation for the outstanding sportspersons under the Rules and thus, the reservation claimed being outside the purview of RPSC, the candidature of the appellant for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr. II cannot be considered under the reserved category of ‘Sportspersons’.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that ignoring the sports quota prescribed under the Rules, the denial of consideration of the appellant for recruitment to the post under ‘Sportspersons’ category is ex facie illegal and arbitrary. It is submitted that the circular dated 24.6.08 issued by the Department of Personnel (A-II) clearly provides that there shall be 2% reservation for Sportspersons in direct recruitment to the various posts but the RPSC ignoring the same while issuing the advertisement for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.II has provided no reservation for Sportspersons. It is submitted that while denying the reservation to the appellant in the category of Sportspersons, the respondents have acted unjustly and the learned Single Judge has seriously erred in observing that the Rules do not provide for reservation to Sportspersons and thus, the same is beyond the purview of RPSC.

¶19

It is noticed that circular dated 24.6.08 issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel (A-II) laying down General Provisions regarding reservation in government service, vide Clause 2.1 prescribes 2% reservation for Sportspersons in Subordinate and Ministerial Services. Admittedly, recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.II is governed by Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (for short “the Rules of 1970”)

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[SAW-806/2018]

¶22

and the said post does not fall within the Subordinate and Ministerial Services and thus, the claim of the appellant for consideration of his candidature against alleged reservation quota for Sportspersons, for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.II on the strength of the said circular dated 24.6.08 is absolutely misconceived.

¶23

It is pertinent to note that in exercise of the power conferred by proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Rajasthan vide notification dated 15.3.13, has promulgated Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2013, whereby the various service Rules as specified in the Schedule attached to the said notification, have been amended and the provision has been incorporated therein providing reservation of vacancies for outstanding sportspersons. The newly inserted rule in various service Rules prescribes reservation of vacancies for outstanding sportspersons to the extent of 2% of total vacancies which are outside the purview of commission in that year earmarked for direct recruitment. Indisputably, the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules,1971 (for short “Rules of 1971”) has been included in the Schedule attached to the notification at serial No.31 whereby after Rule 7C in the said Rules, the rule providing for reservation for outstanding sportspersons, has been inserted. But then, the Rules of 1970 are not included in the Schedule attached and thus, there is no reservation provided to Sportsperson for recruitment to the posts governed by the Rules of 1970. That apart, as per the newly inserted rule, even in respect of the posts governed by Rules of 1971, the vacancies whereof are within the purview of RPSC, the reservation to the sportspersons is not admissible.

¶24

(4 of 4)

¶25

[SAW-806/2018]

¶26

In view of the discussion above, the contention of the appellant that ignoring the reservation provided to the sportspersons, his candidature has not been considered for recruitment to the post of Teacher Gr.II against the category of the sportspersons, is absolutely devoid of any merit.

¶27

In the result, the special appeal is dismissed.

¶28

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶29

(SANGEET LODHA),J

¶30

Aditya/

Madhav Singh Mehru v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhav Singh Mehru v. State of Rajasthan and Anr.

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

Union of India Vs M/S Satyam Enterprises

Union of India Vs M/S Rajasthan Gum Pvt. Ltd.

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Central Vs M/S Miraj Products P Ltd.

Ram Kishore Vs the Chairman Board of Sec.Education Andors

Commissioner of Income Tax, Exemption, Vs M/S Brahmrishi Kheteshwar Janm Sthali

State of Rajasthan and Ors. Vs Malam Singh