Partly allowed

Shanti Lal Meghwal v. Raj. High Court, Jodhpur

Rajasthan HC20 Oct 2021CW/4059/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition concerns an SC candidate rejected from a Driver post despite scoring above cut-off. The court allowed provisional participation in the next selection stage pending a full administrative enquiry into the validity of the petitioner's transport driving license.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner called for further selection test; participation provisional; final appointment contingent on inquiry outcome.

Shanti Lal Meghwal Vs Raj. High Court, Jodhpur — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4059/2021

¶3

Shanti Lal Meghwal S/o Ramaji, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Swaraj Nagar, Machla Magra, Gali No.8, Udaipur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General.

¶7

The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) For Respondent(s)

¶10

: Mr. R.S. Choudhary : Dr. Sachin Acharya with Mr. Manvendra Singh

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

20/10/2021

¶14

The petitioner belongs to SC category. He had applied for the post of Driver, for which an advertisement was issued by the High Court Administration on 22.07.2020. As per the recruitment rules as well as the advertisement, in order to be eligible for appointment, the candidates must have a valid driving license for light motor vehicle as well as transport vehicle. The petitioner fulfilled all other eligibility criteria and applied for the post in question. The High Court Administration carried out the screening test and decided to call the candidates ten times the number of vacancies in each category. The petitioner claims to have answered 75 out of 100 questions correctly, which assessment is

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-4059/2021]

¶17

based on the basis of the answer-key provided by the High Court Administration on completion of the screening test. The cut-off marks for SC category candidates was 70. Despite this cut-off marks prescribed by the Administration and the petitioner having answered 75 questions correctly, he was not called for further selection test. He, therefore, filed this petition challenging the decision of the Administration in not calling him for further selection test.

¶18

The entire controversy between the petitioner and the respondents revolves around the question whether the petitioner was having a valid transport license. The petitioner has produced copies of his driving license annexed as Annexure-3 (pages 22 & 23 of the compilation of writ petition).

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in the smart license provided by the R.T.O. authorities as well as in the details of the driving license provided, it is clearly indicated that the petitioner holds a valid driving license for the transport vehicles.

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner does not hold a valid driving license for a transport vehicle, the laden weight whereof exceeds 7500 kg. In this context, learned counsel for the respondents relies on various definitions contained in Section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pertaining to “light motor vehicles”, “gross vehicle weight” and “transport vehicle”. Our attention is also drawn to Section 14 the Motor Vehicles Act and in particular sub-section (2) thereof.

¶21

We are informed that after completing the screening test, further selection process is not yet completed by the respondents. In view of the facts of the case, we are of the opinion that the

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CW-4059/2021]

¶24

petitioner should be permitted to participate in the further selection process, of course, provisionally and subject to the High Court Administration carrying out full enquiry with respect to the fact whether the petitioner holds a valid driving license for transport vehicle, as required under the Rules. This is so because at Annexure-3, the petitioner has produced copies of the driving license and the details provided by the R.T.O., which prima facie indicates the fact that the petitioner has been issued license for driving a transport vehicle. However, we are not concluding this issue in the present petition at this stage. Let the High Court Administration carry out full enquiry with respect to the same.

¶25

Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of with following directions:-

¶26

(i) The respondents shall call the petitioner for further selection test, provided his marks in the screening test crosses the cut-off marks drawn by the High Court for SC category candidates.

¶27

(ii) The participation of the petitioner in such selection process would be provisional and will not create any equity in his favour.

¶28

(iii) If the petitioner is not included in the select list on the basis of his performance, there would be no need for any further screening.

¶29

(iv) If the name of the petitioner is included in the select merit list on the basis of performance in the test, his inclusion in the select merit list would be provisional and it would be open for the High Court Administration to carry out full enquiry with respect to the question whether he holds a valid licence for driving transport vehicle.

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CW-4059/2021]

¶32

(v) The question of offering him appointment would depend upon the outcome of such enquiry.

¶33

The petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶34

(SANDEEP MEHTA),J

¶35

(AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶36

2-MohitTak/-

Shanti Lal Meghwal v. Raj. High Court, Jodhpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanti Lal Meghwal v. Raj. High Court, Jodhpur

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

Ram Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Vijay Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Pramod Soni Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajveer Vs State of Rajasthan

Devi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Saket Jain Vs Urban Improvement Trust