Jintendra Singh Naruka vs State of Raj. and Others

Ajay Rastogi, J.—This is a second round of litigation of the present Petitioner seeking appointment on the post of Psychical Training Instructor Grade-III (PTI Gr.III) pursuant to the selection process which the Respondents initiated vide advertisement dt. 28/07/2003.

The posts of PTI Gr.III for various districts were advertised by the Respondents and the Petitioner applied for the post of PTI Gr.III in district Dausa. Out of 11 vacancies advertised for district Dausa, 6 were reserved for general candidates for which the Petitioner was one of the applicant. It appears that when the advertised vacancies of general category remained unfilled and the Petitioner could not be considered for appointment, he approached this Court by filing CWP-2148/2004 which was decided on 26/03/2007 with direction to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner against two remaining unfilled posts of PTI Gr.III of the general category and if his name finds place in the order of merit, consider him appointment w.e.f. the date, last candidate from the general category was so appointed.

Pursuant to the judgment of this Court, a representation was made and the State Government vide its detailed order dated 10/01/2008 disposed of the his representation in which it has been averred that after the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court disposing of a Public Interest Litigation CWP-5207/2003 decided on 09/03/2004, in terms thereof, the merit list was revised and against unfilled vacancies five times of number of vacancies i.e. 20 candidates were called for and the last candidate, who was called for interview, secured 78.22% marks whereas the Petitioner has secured 76.78 % marks and, as such, as per the revised list prepared by the Respondents, the Petitioner''s name does not find place in the list upto five times of number of vacancies being called for interview pursuant thereto. It has also been averred in the order impugned that in the list prepared in the order of merit, there were 8 candidates higher to him, who are waiting for their appointment and in such circumstances, the Petitioner has no right to consideration for appointment. The order communicated to him dt. 10/01/2008 is subject matter of the present writ petition.

The main thrust of submission of counsel for Petitioner is that the Petitioner, being one of the candidates called for interview and inclined to get appointment against the advertised vacancies for district Dausa reserved for general category and in such circumstances, as per the order passed by this Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition preferred by him vide judgment dt. 26/03/2007, the Respondents were under obligation to fill the remaining vacancies and in absence whereof they were obliged to assign cogent reasons for keeping vacancies unfilled and since the Respondents failed to discharge their obligation, the action of the Respondents is wholly arbitrary and the Petitioner, as per his placement in the order of merit, is entitled to be considered for appointment on the post of PIT Gr.III in district Dausa.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the Respondents in which it has been specifically averred that appointments were made against the advertised vacancies in district Dausa but on account of interim order passed in Public Interest Litigation, further process remained withheld and after the judgment of this Court the process was initiated in terms thereof and the merit list for district Dausa stood revised and out of 20 candidates, who were called against unfilled vacancies in the ratio of 1:5, the last candidate secured 78.22% marks and, as such, in the revised list, the name of the Petitioner could not find place in the first 20 candidates to be called for interview looking to his percentage i.e. 76.78 and in such circumstances, at least the Petitioner has no right to claim appointment on the basis of selection.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

The order impugned dt. 10/01/2008, it clearly manifests that against 6 posts, which were reserved for general category out of 11 vacancies in district Dausa advertised pursuant to advertisement dt. 28/07/2003 of PTI Gr. IiI. as per the procedure for merit circulated by the Respondents, the Petitioner secured 76.78% marks. Out of the revised merit list which was prepared by the Respondents, five times of the number of unfilled vacancies, in all 20 candidates, were called for interview out of which the last candidate, who was called for interview against unfilled vacancies, secured 78.22% marks and at the same time the Petitioner indisputably secured 76.78% marks. Taking note thereof, if name of the Petitioner does not find place in five times of the number of unfilled vacancies, in the opinion of this Court, no right can be said to be conferred in favour of the Petitioner to seek appointment against unfilled vacancies advertised in pursuant to the advertisement referred to supra.

The submission of counsel for Petitioner that two vacancies remained unfilled for general category in district Dausa in no manner supports his contention for the reasons that in the revised list of 5 times of number of vacancies, if the name of the Petitioner does not find place, certainly his right of consideration cannot be said to be infringed and merely because he had participated in the process will not confer right to be considered for appointment.

Consequently, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.