The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-appointment of a physically handicapped teacher. The Court held that district-level vacancy determination was valid and no seats were reserved as per district norms, additionally finding the petitioner did not meet the required cut-off marks for the disability category.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4718/2022
Kailash Tandi S/o Hukma Ram Tandi, Aged About 21 Years, Village Burkiya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Hanuman Singh Choudhary |
|---|---|
| Mr. PradeepSingh | |
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. PankajSharma,AAG |
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Judgment
04 th January, 2023
The facts of the case are as under :
The present petitioner who is a Physically Handicapped Candidate (40% permanent disability) applied for the post of Teacher Gr.III Level-I Special Education (V.I.) in OBC category. The case of the petitioner is that in the vacancies advertised for the year 2021-2022 for Teacher Gr.III Level-I Special Education, not a single post was reserved for PH category. Therefore, the petitioner, who was called for
(2 of 6)
[CW-4718/2022]
document verification and was entitled to be appointed, was not granted appointment.
It has been submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that for the year 2021-2022, total 440 seats were advertised for the post of Special Teacher, out of which 64 were for Special Education (Visually Impaired). The petitioner applied for the post of Special Education (Visually Impaired) and had obtained 82 marks in his REET Examination. According to the petitioner, the cut-off marks for PH category (LCD) was 75 and the petitioner having obtained more than cut-off marks ought to have been granted appointment. The main ground raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is that out of 440 seats advertised for the post of Special Teacher, not a single seat was reserved for PH category and the same was totally against the condition of the advertisement which itself provided for 4% reservation to PH category aspirants. It has further been submitted that notification dated 23.01.2019 has been issued in terms of Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disability Rules, 2018 (for short ‘the Rules of 2018’) and in terms of the same, 4% reservation ought to have been granted to the PH category candidates. The complete advertisement No.01/2021-22 dated 31.12.2021 itself has been challenged on the said ground.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the advertisement was totally in
(3 of 6) [CW-4718/2022]
consonance with law and because of the vacancies being computed and advertised district-wise, no post fell reserved for PH category candidate and therefore, there was nothing illegal in advertisement dated 31.12.2021. Learned counsel submitted that for none of the districts, the vacancy was more than 15 and therefore, any seat could not have been reserved for PH candidates. Learned counsel further submitted that if the number of vacancies outnumbered 25 then only 1 seat could have been reserved for PH category candidates. As number of vacancies did not increase more than 15 in any of the district, no seat could have been reserved and rightly so. However, the vacancies qua the backlog of PH category candidates were also advertised vide the same advertisement and reservation qua the same was also granted. The cut-off for the said seats was declared to be 84 marks and the petitioner having obtained 82 marks could not be selected and hence was not granted appointment.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
So far as the issue whether the determination of vacancies for reserved category candidates can be made by taking the vacancies at the district level is concerned, the same issue was raised and decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in case of Ganesh Narayan Mali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors and connected matters( S.B.
(4 of 6)
[CW-4718/2022]
Civil Writ Petition No.15721/2015 ) decided on
07.01.2016. In the said case, the issue raised was as under :
“A contest has been made regarding determination of the vacancies for ST and SBC candidates (issue No.6). Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that determination of the posts for reserve category candidates has been made by taking vacancies at the district level, whereas, not only the advertisement but the cadre is at the State level thus determination of the vacancies of SBC and ST category should have been made on the total posts so advertised.”
The adjudication of the issue was made as under :
“I have considered rival submissions of the parties and find that if a cadre is at the State level, determination of number of posts for reserve category candidates should not have been taken at the district level. However, out of two posts, cadre for one post is at the district level thus, there is no illegality in determination of posts at that level . ” (Emphasis supplied)
Thus, as settled in the case of Ganesh Narayan Mali , the post can be advertised at the district level and there is no illegality in determination of the post at that level. Hence, when the determination at district level is held to be valid, the only aspect to be considered would be number of seats advertised qua a particular district. Admittedly, in the
(5 of 6) [CW-4718/2022]
advertisement in question, none of the vacancies for a particular district outnumbered 15 and more specifically in Visually Impaired (V.I.) category qua which the petitioner applied, none of vacancies outnumbered 4. Hence, no seat could have been reserved for PH category. In Karamveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5930/2022) decided on 03.08.2022, a similar controversy regarding ‘Outstanding Sports Person’ arose and it was held by the Court as under :
“Further a look at the advertisement clearly indicates that no posts has been reserved against quota of ‘Outstanding Sports Person’, inasmuch as, the entire recruitment is district-wise and in none of the district in the category of MR, 50 or more than 50 posts are available and therefore, as the reservation provided is 2%, none of the post has been reserved by the respondents for ‘Outstanding Sports Person’.”
In view of ratio as laid down in the above judgments, it can be safely concluded that non reservation of any seat for PH category candidates qua the fresh vacancies of the year 2021-2022, cannot be held to be bad. So far as non appointment of the petitioner despite his having been called for document verification is concerned, it is clear on record that the cut-off for Locomotor Disabled (LD) category was 84 marks and the petitioner had 82 marks in his REET
(6 of 6) [CW-4718/2022]
Examination, meaning thereby he was not entitled for appointment.
In view of above observations, the present writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J
267-Vij/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether non-reservation of posts for Persons with Disabilities category could be justified as adoption of district-level vacancy determination.
Whether the petitioner's failure to meet the sectional cut-off marks despite document verification entitled him to appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ganesh Narayan Mali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & OrsFollowed¶31
Ganesh Narayan Mali & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15721/2015)
Karamveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶35
Karamveer Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5930/2022)
Kailash Tandi
State Of Rajasthan
Rekha Borana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
