Dismissed

R P S C Ajmer v. Mahesh Kumar and Ors.

Rajasthan HC20 Oct 2023CW/8435/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging an order allowing impaired candidates to claim experience exemption under Rule 40 for a regular recruitment, the Court held that Rule 40 applies only to temporary appointments. For regular posts where initial recruits are appointed as Apprentice Trainees, the rule does not apply. The impugned order was set aside, and candidates were permitted to file representations.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; respondents allowed to file representation under Rule 57 within time specified by concerned authority.

R P S C Ajmer Vs Mahesh Kumar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8435/2013

¶3

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Mahesh Kumar S/o Chhitar Mal, Village Isharakabas, Post Baberi, Tehsil Bansur, District Alwar Raj.

¶7

Mohan Lal Bairwa, Gothwal Dhani Bobas, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur

¶8

The Commissioner, Persons With Disabilities, Rajasthan, G-3/1, Ambedkar Bhawan, Behind Hotel Rajmahal Residency Area, Jaipur

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sashwat Purohit For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶12

Order

¶13

20/10/2023

¶14

By this petition, a challenge is made to the order of Commissioner, Specially Disabled Person. The order aforesaid was passed in reference to the recruitment to the post of Public Relation Officer/Assistant Public Relation Officer. The respondents are lacking in required experience hence approached Commissioner to take benefit of Rule 40 of Rajasthan Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 2011 (in short “the Rules of 2011”). The application of the respondents was allowed with the direction to the petitioner to extend the benefit of Rule 40 and make recruitment accordingly.

¶15

(2 of 3) [CW-8435/2013]

¶16

Learned counsel for petitioners submits that Rule 40 applies when temporary appointments are made, whereas RPSC is making regular appointment herein.

¶17

Learned counsel for respondents submits that appointment pursuant to the advertisement would be on temporary/permanent basis for a period of two years thus Rule40 applies to the case in hand.

¶18

I have considered the rival submissions made and perused the record. The recruitments are made by RPSC only on regular basis though as per extant rules, one is appointed initially as Apprentice Trainee but those appointments are not considered to be temporary appointment as in every service rules, provision for urgent temporary appointments exist separately and are made by the department and not by the RPSC. In view of the above, if Rule 40 of the Rules of 2011 allows concessions in temporary appointment then it cannot be made available to the respondents for recruitment in question. For ready reference, Rule 40 is quoted hereasunder:

¶19

“40. Concessions.- Following concessions shall be allowed to the person with disabilities for making him eligible for employment mentioned in rule 36:(i)5 percentage of qualifying or pass marks in individual paper and in aggregate marks, wherever prescribed in any examination. (ii)The academic qualification given in the certificate issued by the recognizsed Institute meant for the person with hearing impairment shall be considered at par with those other Institutions recognised by the Government.

¶20

(iii)The condition or desirability of training/tests/experience whenever prescribed shall not apply to the disabled person for temporary appointment. Where a particular training is

¶21

[CW-8435/2013]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

essential for appointment to a post, the disabled person may be required to receive such training with in two years of his appointment.”

¶24

Perusal of sub-rule (3) reveals exemption to the specially disabled person for temporary appointments thus the Commissioner has wrongly invoked Rule 40 for regular appointments. Accordingly, impugned orders cannot be allowed to sustain hence set aside. The respondents would be at liberty to make representation in view of Rule 57 of the Rules of 2011. If representation is made, authority concerned would be expected to decide the same within fifteen days from the date of receipt of representation.

¶25

With the aforesaid, writ petition so as stay application is disposed of.

¶26

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶27

KuD/167

R P S C Ajmer v. Mahesh Kumar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R P S C Ajmer v. Mahesh Kumar and Ors.

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

Ratan Singh Rathore and Anr. Vs State of Raj

Anil Kuamr Rawat Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Son of Shri Mohan Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan

Rajendra Prasad Jain Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Swati Meena and Ors. Vs Chairman R P S C Ajmer and Ors.

Naveen Sharma S/O Shri Omprakash Sharma Vs Assistant General Manager, Jodhpur Zone and Disciplinary Authority