Dismissed

Pankaj Saini S/O Shri Ram Chandra Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Nov 2022CW/9508/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of candidature for Junior Accountant post due to alleged denial of reservation benefits. Court dismissed petition citing delay in filing, distinction from earlier precedents like Chandan Mal Maru, and completion of selection process, refusing jurisdiction under Article 226.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no relief granted to the petitioners.

Pankaj Saini S/O Shri Ram Chandra Saini Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9508/2020

¶3

Pankaj Saini S/o Shri Ram Chandra Saini, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of 25-A, Deepak Colony, Barkat Nagar, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶4

Chote Lal Pataliya S/o Shri Sita Ram Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 158, Jaganath Baba Ki Dhani, Village Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶8

The Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶9

The Directorate, Treasury And Accounts, Through The Director, Treasury And Accounts, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶10

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad Mr. Manish Parihar For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Govind Gupta

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶14

Order

¶15

09/11/2022

¶16

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayer:-

¶17

“It is, therefore humbly prayed that Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the writ petition of the humble petitioners and by an appropriate writ, order or direction:-

¶18

(2 of 5)

¶19

[CW-9508/2020]

¶20

The impugned order dated 04.04.2019 (Annx. 10) passed by the respondentRajasthan Public Service Commission while rejecting the candidature of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.09.2013 (Annx. 1) may kindly be declared arbitrary and illegal and accordingly be quashed and set aside. 2. The respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of petitioners for appointment on the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.09.2013 (Annx.-1) while extending the benefits of the Ministerial Employees Category to the petitioners in terms of adjudication made in the case of Surendra Kumar Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition- 7239/2017}, in the interest of justice.

¶21

The respondents may kindly be directed to grant all consequential benefits to the petitioners with effect from the date of appointment of lesser meritorious candidates on the post of Junior Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant in pursuance of advertisement dated 18.09.2013, in the interest of justice.

¶22

Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble court deem just and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioners. 5. Cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioners.”

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 18.09.2013, the petitioners applied for the post of Junior Accountant and thereafter the examination was conducted, result of which was declared in the year 2016. In the first round of litigation, the petitioners filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9615/2018 which was disposed of by this court vide order dated 05.05.2018, thereafter since the writ petition was disposed of ex parte, the R.P.SC. filed S.B. Civil Writ Review Petition No.272/2018 which was decided by the Coordinate Bench of this court vide order dated 27.03.2019 giving opportunity to the

¶24

(3 of 5)

¶25

[CW-9508/2020]

¶26

review petitioners to pass appropriate orders considering the judgments cited by the petitioners, thereafter the respondents considered and decided the representation submitted by the petitioners vide order dated 04.04.2019. Hence, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 04.04.2019.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved in this writ petition has been considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Pawan Vyas (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.715/2018 decided on 16.07.2018).

¶28

Counsel appearing on behalf of RPSC submitted that the subsequently the Division Bench of this Court in its order dated 28.05.2019 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.508/2019 (Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Chandan Mal Maru) has also considered the earlier Division Bench judgment passed in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Pawan Vyas and held in para Nos. 12, 13 & 14 as under:-

¶29

“12. To this Court, it appears that a common approach was adopted by the learned Single Judge, in granting relief while following Surendra Kumar Vyas (supra). The available materials show that Pawan Vyas at the very first instance claimed 12.5% reservation as a ministerial candidate, however, immediately after the public notice was issued on 16.04.2015, he sought and was allowed rectification by a representation where he clearly stated that he was entitled to reservation and yet deleted reference to it in the form as he was asked to do so. In the case of the respondent Chandan Mal Maru, however, at no relevant time within the given time i.e. neither in the original form nor even within the time prescribed by the first and second public notice, did he categorically state

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

[CW-9508/2020]

¶32

that he was entitled to the reservation. Even in the form filled, he claimed that he was a general category

¶33

candidate i.e. in other words, did not seek reservation specifically. The claim made by him was after conclusion of the examination. If the respondent’s argument were to prevail, the peculiar circumstances which may prevail that every candidate would be a subjective factor which the Court would have to weigh in and consider while granting relief.

¶34

Whilst it is true that generally speaking he belongs to the same category, yet at the same time the Court has to be cognizant of the fact that at no relevant time did he claim the reservation in question. He along with the others were armed in their resolve to secure reservation which ultimately the Court granted in its judgment, on the strength of the decision in Surendra Kumar Vyas (supra). He approached the Court for relief after the judgment.

¶35

In the opinion of this Court, the respondent was not entitled to the relief granted in the main judgment. The learned Single Judge, therefore, clearly erred in disallowing the review petition. Consequently, the impugned common judgment is set aside so far as respondent Chandan Mal Maru is concerned; as a result his writ petition stands dismissed.”

¶36

This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the result of the post in question was declared by the R.P.S.C. in the year 2016 and for the first time, the petitioners filed the writ petition in the year 2018 after a delay of two years; secondly, the petitioners claimed the similar relief under the Ministerial Employees category as has been given to Surendra Kumar Vyas whereas in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Chandan Mal Maru, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief as the petitioner has approached the court for claiming the similar relief after passing of the judgment

¶37

(5 of 5)

¶38

[CW-9508/2020]

¶39

in the matter of Surendra Kumar Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan; thirdly, the selection process for the posts in question has already been completed; and lastly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶40

Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

¶41

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶42

JYOTI /106

Pankaj Saini S/O Shri Ram Chandra Saini v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Saini S/O Shri Ram Chandra Saini v. State of Rajasthan

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

Taju Singh S/O Sajjan Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Rajbeer Son of Sukhram Vs State of Rajasthan

Uday Parik @ Ashu Son of Arun Kumar Parik Vs State of Rajasthan

Anupama Basvaraj Patne D/O Shri Basvaraj Patne Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmal Kumar Gautam Son of Late Shri Niranjan Prasad Sharma Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vtran Nigam Ltd.

Dinesh Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.