Ashok Kumar Dangi @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:

“A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of

Teacher Grade-

III (Level-I) against the category of TSP OBC instead of OBC for the Zila Parishad Udaipur in pursuance of the advertisement year 2013.

B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process for the post

of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) while consider his actual category i.e. TSP OBC instead of OBC in pursuance of the advertisement year, 2013.

C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to afford the petitioner appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-

III (level-I) in the category of TPS OBC with all consequential benefits in pursuance of the advertisement year 2013 if otherwise he stands in merit.

D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondentsmay kindly be directed to not to deny the appointment and not to reject the candidature on

the ground of filling of wrong category i.e. OBC Category in place of TSP OBC.

E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which thisHon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

F. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly beallowed with costs. “

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy is covered by the judgment of this Court in the matter of Rinku Rathore Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 04.12.2017 in SBCWP No. 11778?2017 which reads as under:

 “1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs :-

“A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondnts may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of

Teacher Grade III Level I against the category of TSP General Women instead of General women for the Zila Parishad Banswara in pursuance of

the advertisement year 2013.

B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process for the post

of Teacher Grade III (Level-I) while consider her actual category i.e. TSP General Women instead of General Women in pursuance of the

advertisement year 2013.

C. By an apprpropriate writ order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to afford the petitioner appointment on the post of Teacher

GradeIII (Level-I) in the category of TSP General Women with all consequential benefits in pursuance of the advertisemen year 2013 if otherwise he

stands in merit.

D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to not to deny the appointment and not to reject the candidature on

the ground of filling of wrong category i.e. General Women Category in place of TSP General Women.

E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

E. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is female candidate, who participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher

Grade-III arising out of the advertisement in the year 2013. The petitioner having good academic record and having qualified RTET of 2011 and being

candidate of area of TSP District Banswara participated in the process.

Admittedly, the whole controversy is that the petitioner submitted the form under the category of General Women. The petitioner’s case is that

they should have been considered in their respective category but since respective category was not available in this particular Zone of TSP area,

therefore, the petitioner ought to have been considered as General Category candidate in the TSP area.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner is not seeking any reservation in any category and therefore, it is not a case

of category change but merely the petitioner have to be considered in the TSP General which is the open category. Learned counsel for the petitioner

has stated that being in the open category or General category did not amount to category correction as the advertisement for this particular Zone was

for TSP area only.

Learned counsel for the respondent has however, stated that the petitioner did not write TSP and therefore, they could not given preference as TSP

General category candidate.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court takes note of the fact that the broadly the area in question was

TSP area and thus, the petitioner who was a women of General category and has filled General Women as her category is not seeking any

improvement in her category or merit but simply she is seeking consideration in the General category open recruitment seats for Teacher Grade-III.

However, without making any comment on merits of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the respondents to consider the representation of the

petitioner for being treated as a TSP General category women candidate in open category where the local residents have been given preference. The

respondents shall pass a speaking order within a period of 30 days from submission of such representation and until the final orders are passed, the

interim order granted by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 19.09.2017 shall remain in currency.

With the aforesaid direction, this writ petition is disposed of.â€​

The present writ petition is also disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner within a period of 30 days in

light of the above referred matter.