Disposed

Babulal Swami S/O Raghu Nath Das v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Rajasthan HC12 May 2023CW/18/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench at Jaipur disposed of three writ petitions regarding recruitment for Senior Scientific Officer posts. It noted reserved female seats were filled separately. Court applied precedents to direct RPSC to call higher-merit female petitioner for appointment in unreserved category. RPSC directed to revise result.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ms. Gunjan Indauliya directed to file representations before RPSC within 15 days; RPSC directed to consider same within four weeks, revise result, and fill vaca

Babulal Swami S/O Raghu Nath Das Vs Rajasthan… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

[2023/RJJP/010495]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13464/2021

¶4

Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma S/o Late Sh. Sukhdev Sharma, Aged About 38 Years, R/o V.p.o. Iklahra, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur -321203 (Rajasthan).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Director, Directorate Of State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rpa Road, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur -302016 (Raj.).

¶9

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶10

Gunjan Indauliya D/o Ashok Kumar Indauliya, Roll No.300960 Through Secretary, Rpsc, Ajmer (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18/2021

¶14

Babulal Swami S/o Raghu Nath Das, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Swami Ki Dhani, Village Kanarpura, Via Kaladera, Tahsil Chomu, District Jaipur.

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Secretary.

¶18

Rajasthan Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur Through Director.

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14110/2021

¶21

Gunjan Indauliya D/o Ashok Kumar Indauliya, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Bijwari, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan

----Petitioner

Versus

(2 of 4)

[2023/RJJP/010495]

[CW-13464/2021]

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur Rajasthan.

¶28

The Director, Directorate Of State Forensic Science Laboratory Rpa Road, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur 302016

¶29

The Secretary Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

¶30

Mahesh Chand Sharma, (Roll No. 300815) Through Secretary Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

¶31

----Respondents

¶32

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta, Mr. Tanmay Dhand, Mr. Aditya Sharma for Mr. Vikas Jakhar, Advs.

¶33

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. Rupin Kala, Advs.

¶34

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶35

Order

¶36

12/05/2023

¶37

The present matters pertains to appointment on the post of ‘Senior Scientific Officer’ in pursuance to advertisement dated 25.05.2019.

¶38

It is informed that three candidates, namely Ms. Sarita Kumari, Mr. Praveen Jha, and Mr. Manish Sharma were declared successful and offered appointmnet. Out of those three, only two joined and on account of non-joining by one of the selected candidates, appointment was offered to Mr. Mahendra Tripathi who stood at Serial No. 1 in the waiting list with total marks 57.68 (out of 100). Accordingly, Mr. Mahendra Tripathi had also joined services.

¶39

It is further informed that as of now, two posts are lying vacant; one on account of non-joining of the selected meritorious

[2023/RJJP/010495]

[CW-13464/2021]

(3 of 4)

candidate and one on account of order of this Court dated 04.01.2021 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18/2021. It is submitted by learned counsel for respondent-RPSC that the RPSC is desirous of filling the vacant posts, but on account on pending litigation the recruitment process has been put on halt.

¶44

In furtherance of orders of this Court, the respondent-RPSC has produced the result of the three petitioners. This Court has perused the said result. The marks obtained by each of the petitioner are as under:

¶45

1.) Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13464/2021): 56.12

¶46

2.) Mr. Babulal Swami (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18/2021): 54.10

¶47

3.) Ms. Gunjan Indauliya (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14110/2021): 55.98

¶48

Learned counsel Mr. Tanmay Dhand, representing Mr. Babulal Swami (petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18/2021), fairly conceded that since the petitioner is not the most meritorious candidate amongst them, he cannot press for appointment on the advertised post. Therefore, the S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18/2021 has become of mere academic importance and there is no need to dwell into the merits of the secondary arguments made in the writ petition. The stay dated 04.01.2021 is also accordingly lifted.

¶49

So far as the other two petitioners are concerned, since they are the meritorious candidates, their candidature deserves to be considered. The contention of learned counsel for the respondentRPSC that candidature of petitioner-Ms. Gunjan Indauliya cannot be considered as the seat reserved for women candidate has

[2023/RJJP/010495]

[CW-13464/2021]

(4 of 4)

already been filled by Ms. Sarita Kumari is entirely untenable as per dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of BSNL vs. Sandeep Choudhary: AIR 2022 SC 2975 and Saurav Yadav vs. State of UP: (2021) 4 SCC 542 , wherein it is specifically held that reserve category candidates who score more than general candidate should be appointed in unreserved category as merit must be given preference; that the open category is open for all and the only condition for a candidate to be shown is merit, regardless of whether reservation of either type (horizontal or vertical) is available to them.

¶54

In this background, this Court directs the petitioners (Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma and Ms. Gunjan Indauliya) to file their representation before the respondent-RPSC within a period of 15 days.

¶55

The respondent-RPSC, in these changed circumstances, is directed to consider the representation within a further period of four weeks and pass revised result and fill the vacant post(s) as per applicable Rules & Regulations.

¶56

With the above direction, all these writ petitions are disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.

¶57

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶58

ANIL SHARMA /62-64

Babulal Swami S/O Raghu Nath Das v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babulal Swami S/O Raghu Nath Das v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

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

Daulat Ram Vs Baiju Batham

Ashok Kumar Agarwal Vs Riico Andors

Jaiprakash Devat Son of Shri Madan Lal Devat Vs State of Rajasthan

Dharam Pal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Bholaram Son of Shri Ramjilal Vs Harchanda Son of Shri Narain (Since Deceased)

Ramkishore Bilonia Vs Union of India Andors