Ram Avtar And Ors vs State And Ors

Arun Monga, J

Petitioners are before this Court seeking directions to the respondents to reshuffle and re-determine the final select list by disqualifying candidates from the general category who were appointed under the reserved OBC category, and to grant appointments to the petitioners with all consequential benefits.

Succinctly speaking, brief facts, as pleaded in the petition are:-

2.1 The respondents, through a notification dated 31.05.2008, invited applications for 20,060 posts of Prabodhak, out of which 1,154 posts were allocated to the district of Nagaur. This number was later increased to 1,527, with the category-wise distribution. Several issues arose during the recruitment process, leading to numerous writ petitions. One significant issue was the refusal of the District Education Officer to countersign the experience certificates of the candidates, including the petitioners. This Court in Surajmal Jat v. State (SBCWP No. 3229/2009) ruled on 08.12.2009 that countersigning by the District Education Officer was not necessary. As a result, all petitioners were interviewed by the respondents.

2.2 Following the court's direction, the respondents conducted interviews, resulting in the selection of 1270 candidates for the Prabodhak posts. However, the respondents exceeded the prescribed limits for General category appointments, filling reserved OBC category seats with 64 General candidates. Subsequently, some petitioners filed another writ petition, arguing that their candidature was not considered, and that General candidates had been appointed in excess of the allowable limit.

2.3 This Court, vide an order dated 13.01.2014, directed the petitioners to submit a representation to the respondents, which was to be decided with a speaking order after a personal hearing. Upon discovering the unlawful extension of benefits to General candidates, the petitioners approached the Court once again, specifically requesting that OBC posts not be filled by General candidates. This Court, in Ram Avtar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No. 5692/2017) on 05.05.2016, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' representation and issue a speaking order, taking into account previous court orders.

2.4 Despite submitting detailed representations referencing relevant judgments, the respondents failed to take action in compliance with the directions issued on 13.01.2014. Petitioner No. 01, following the order of 05.05.2016, submitted a representation requesting appointment under the OBC category. However, the respondents dismissed this request on 22.08.2016, citing the lack of countersignature by the District Education Officer. This decision was seen as an attempt to compel the petitioner to restart the entire process.

2.5 It is submitted that the respondents, through various means, have prevented the petitioners from receiving their rightful appointments under the OBC category, despite their eligibility and merit. Hence, the instant writ petition.

The stand taken in the reply filed by the respondents is that the petitioners belong to the OBC category, and the merit list was prepared by the respondents based on seniority within each category. According to the roster of reservation, candidates from the reserved category who appeared in the General category merit list were selected for General category posts. Since the petitioners did not meet the required cut-off marks for the OBC category, they were not included in the merit list. It is also important to note that the recruitment process dates back to 2008, and all vacancies have since been filled, thereby completing the process. 3.1 The respondents prepared the merit list for the advertised posts, including additional posts, after applying the reservation policy. As stated earlier, candidates from the reserved category who appeared in the General category merit list were selected for General category posts. Since the petitioners did not meet the cut-off marks for the OBC category, they were not included in the merit list.

3.2 This Court, through its order dated 13.01.2014 in writ petition No. 3954/2013 (Dinesh Chandra Tiwari v. State), directed the petitioners to submit a representation. In compliance with the Court's order, the representation filed by the petitioners was addressed by the respondents with a speaking order, affirming that the selection process had been concluded according to the roster policy and category-wise merit.

3.3 It is submitted that candidates from both the General and OBC categories were granted appointments based on their merit within their respective categories, and no candidates below the cut-off marks for their respective categories were appointed.

In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard the rival contentions and perused the case file.

Upon reviewing the averments made by both the parties, I am in agreement with the stand taken in the reply by the respondents, which has, thus far, remained uncontroverted. In relation to the factual averments made in the reply, no material has been placed on record that contradicts or disputes the claims made by the respondents.

Furthermore, the petitioners have not filed any additional affidavit or rejoinder to challenge or rebut the respondents' position. Consequently, in the absence of any opposing evidence or submissions, the factual assertions made by the respondents stand unchallenged.

Moreover, it transpires that during pendency of the writ petition, even the records of the selection process would have been destroyed over the period of time qua the unsuccessful candidates and therefore, claim of the petitioners that they are more meritorious than the last selected candidate cannot be ascertained.

As a result, no grounds to interfere are made out.

Writ petition is dismissed.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.