Rajesh Kumar Patidar @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

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

“(i) The action of the respondent while not considering the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Teacher GradeIII (Level-I) may kindly be

declared illegal, unjust, arbitrary and violative to Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and/or

(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to consider thecandidature of the petitioner for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) in

pursuance of IIIrd Grade Teacher Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination, 2012 while considering his RTET certificate 2012 in accordance with

the norms issued by the NCTE and State Government and provide him appointment with all consequential benefits; and/or

(iii) The respondents may kindly be directed to change thecategory of petitioner from General to OBC (NonCreamylayer for the post of Teacher

Grade-III (Level-I); and/or

(iv) Any order adverse to the petitioner if passed during thependency of the writ petition may also be declared bad in law and the same be also

quashed and set aside.

(v) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’bleCourt may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour

of the petitioner.

(vi) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of thepetitioner.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner who belongs to OBC Non-Creamy Layer category of TSP area, participated

for the appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I through Teacher Grade-III Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination, 2013 from Zila

Parishad Banswara. The petitioner had secured more than 50% marks in the RTET examination and thus, stood qualified in RTET.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since the TSP area does not have reservation for OBC category and has only recruitment for TSP

General, TSP SC and TSP ST, therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to fill his category as OBC.

It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the only cause of depriving the petitioner from the appointment was that he should have

applied as OBC candidate even when there was no reservation for the OBC category in the TSP area. The petitioner secured 129.68 marks whereas

the cut off marks prescribed for General category was 122.80 marks and hence, the petitioner became entitled for being given appointment but since

he was having less than 60% marks in the RTET examination and he did not filled his category as OBC, therefore, he has been disqualified.

Learned counsel for the respondent however, states that the online application form contained the category of TSP OBC unreserved and therefore,

in the online application form, it was required for the petitioner to filled the category as TSP OBC.

Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the petitioner cannot have two benefits simultaneously as on one account, he is seeking

relaxation in the RTET examination as OBC candidate whereas on the other hand, he is seeking appointment for the General category.

It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner if had filled the OBC category then would have become entitled for

relaxation in the RTET examination and without doing so, since he has participated, he becomes disqualified at the initial stage itself.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the precedent law of earlier judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Dinesh Chandra

Suthar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10994/2017) on 02.02.2018, relevant portion of which reads as under:

“4. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that once the petitioner is admittedly an

OBC category candidate and presently there are no vacant posts available for OBC category candidates in the particular recruitment, but that would

not amount to deprivation of the petitioner from the benefit of relaxation in RTET2012 which is admissible to the candidates belonging to the OBC

category. The petitioner is already having interim order in his favour granted by this Hon’ble Court on 19.09.2017 which reads as under :-

“Mr. Vikas Choudhary, learned counsel appearing for the respondents prays for some time to file reply to the present writ petition.

Time prayed for is allowed. List this case on 25.10.2017.

In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to carry out petitioner’s document verification and counseling tomorrow i.e. on 20.09.2017 and

provisionally consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade â€" III, Level â€" I in the category of TSP (General-Male). If the

petitioner falls in merit list, his name shall be included in final select list, however neither any order of appointment shall be given nor he shall be

permitted to join, except with the leave of this Court.â€​

In the above backdrop, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner in his own merit and if he is

otherwise eligible and meritorious then he shall be given appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III LevelII Social Study subject in the General

TSP Category without disqualifying him on the ground that he has qualified RTET-2012 examination as OBC Male Candidate.â€​

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as the precedent law cited, this Court is of the view that

the TSP area recruitment, 2013 for the post of Teacher Grade-III does not have any reservation for OBC category. This Court finds that the

petitioner in any ways was to be considered only in the general merit of TSP area as the TSP area General has 50% seats. The issue of change in

category in the present case would not arise as the petitioner would have either ways to have contested for the post of Teacher Grade-III in the merit

of General Male category only as there was no reservation for OBC category in the TSP area. The petitioner if would have mentioned OBC category

then the respondent State itself admits that he would have entitled for appointment in the General Male category of TSP area with the relaxation given

for the purpose of RTET examination. Therefore, even while the petitioner qualified RTET examination as OBC candidate he would also become

entitled for being appointed as General Male category candidate as it is not disputed that he was awarded 129.68 marks which is a way above the cut

off marks for the prescribed category.

In light of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to consider the petitioner

in General Male category merit for being appointed for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-I in pursuance of Teacher Grade III Direct Recruitment

Competitive Examination, 2013 while not disqualifying him on account of not having filled OBC TSP in the form.