Allowed

Ramniwas Ram v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC28 Sept 2022CW/4235/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan allowed a writ petition filed by an OBC category hearing-impaired candidate who missed the final document verification opportunity. The court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner to a vacant LDC post in his reserved category.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to be appointed as LDC against vacant posts in Hearing Impairment category fulfilling other criteria; no seniority/pay fixation.

Ramniwas Ram Vs State and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4235/2018

¶4

Ramniwas Ram S/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Resident Of Bhooni, Tehsil- Nawa, District Nagaur

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Rural And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Ajmer, Rajasthan 3. Secretary, Government Of Rajasthan Department Of Personal, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. ManojPurohit
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajdeep Singh Mr. Manish Tak

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

¶12

Order

¶13

28/09/2022

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner appeared for the LDC Examination, 2013 conducted by the respondents. The petitioner belongs to OBC (NCL) (Hearing Impairment) category and he applied in the said category. For candidates with Hearing Impairment (HI), six posts were reserved vide advertisement issued by the respondents. The petitioner was declared successful in the result, declared by the respondents. The successful candidates were thereafter, called for document verification between 28.05.2013 to 03.06.2013. The petitioner could not appear before the respondents for document verification on aforesaid dates. Another opportunity was extended to the successful candidates, for document verification between

¶15

(2 of 4) [CW-4235/2018]

¶16

24.08.2017 to 25.08.2017, however, it was made clear that this would be the last opportunity and the candidates who remain absent shall not be considered for appointment against the advertised post. The petitioner appeared in the office of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer for document verification on 25.08.2017, but his documents were not verified by the respondent-authorities. Thereupon, he submitted an application to the respondents which bears a receipt thereof, by the concerned official. In the reply to the writ petition, the respondents have taken a categorical stand that the petitioner despite several opportunities abstained from appearing for document verification and therefore, his candidature was not considered for appointment.

¶17

Looking to the aforesaid factual dispute involved in the matter, this Court vide order dated 21.03.2022, sought information from the respondents as to whether vacancies pertaining to the petitioner’s category qua the recruitment in question have been filled up or not. Pursuant to direction of this Court, an affidavit was filed bearing signature of Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer with the following statement:-

¶18

“That there were total 6 seats advertised in hearing impaired category, amongst which 3 posts were filled and as of now 3 remained vacant, the cut-off in hearing impaired category was 31.770%.”

¶19

The reproduced statement makes it clear that out of the 6 advertised posts for Hearing Impairment category, only 3 have been filled up and other 3 posts are still lying vacant. It is admitted that petitioner falls within the cut-off for the aforesaid

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CW-4235/2018]

¶22

category as declared by the respondents,. There are no rival claims acting as an impediment in case appointment is offered to the petitioner against the advertised post.

¶23

It would be apposite to mention the observations made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation vs. Union of India & Anr.: (2014) 14 SCC 383 :-

¶24

“...As a matter of fact, the role of the governments in the matter such as this has to be proactive. In the matters of providing relief to those who are differently abled, the approach and attitude of the executive must be liberal and relief oriented and not obstructive or lethargic. A little concern for this class who are differently abled can do wonders in their life and help them stand on their own and not remain on mercy of others. A welfare State, that India is, must accord its best and special attention to a section of our society which comprises of differently abled citizens. This is true equality and effective conferment of equal opportunity.”

¶25

Specially abled persons have been provided reservation in services with the object to provide them with economic and social security while enabling them to live a dignified life. Disability laws have been enacted to ensure equal opportunities are provided to people with disabilities and increase their participation in the process of nation building. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, it would be unjust if appointment is denied to petitioner despite availability of vacant posts in the category of Hearing Impairment (HI) pursuant to the LDC Direct Recruitment Examination, 2013.

¶26

In the result, the writ petition is allowed directing the respondents to consider and appoint petitioner on the post of LDC

¶27

(4 of 4) [CW-4235/2018]

¶28

against the vacancies reserved for the candidates belonging to Hearing Impairment (HI) category pursuant to the LDC Direct Recruitment Examination, 2013, if he fulfills all other criteria. It is however, made clear that petitioner shall not be entitled to claim seniority and pay fixation etc. at par with the candidates who have already been appointed.

¶29

No order as to costs.

¶30

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J

¶31

Prashant/-

Ramniwas Ram v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramniwas Ram 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

Ramesh Kumar Swami Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Laxman Lal Meena and Ors. Vs State and Ors.

Jagdish Prasad Kangasia Vs State of Rajasthan

Bhani Ram Vs Labour Court and Ors.

Smt. Duraga Devi Mairda Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.