AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:
“[A] the respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner and thereafter, to appoint him on the post of Constable Driver in the
OBC category in District Sri Ganganagar as advertised vide advertisement dated 14.10.2010 (Annex.1). B] the clause 12(III)(iii)(d)Â of the standing
order No.5/2010, 7.10.2010 (Annex.2) may kindly be declared illegal and the same be quashed and set aside.
[C] any other appropriate order or direction which thisHon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioner.
[D] Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded tothe petitioner.â€
Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court, are that an advertisement dated 14.10.2010 was issued by the respondents for recruitment of
Constables in five different streams, namely, Constable General, Constable Operator, Constable Driver, Constable Band and Constable Mounted. The
said recruitment process was conducted in accordance with the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, while making district-wise
determination of the vacancies, as mentioned in the advertisement.
The petitioner participated in the aforesaid recruitment process as an aspirant for appointment on the post of Constable Driver as an OBC Category
candidate in District Sriganganagar. The last date for submission of the application form, as mentioned in the advertisement dated 14.10.2010, was
12.11.2010.
The aforementioned advertisement required the candidates to qualify the written examination to be followed by the physical efficiency test and
proficiency test. The written examination carried 75 marks, whereas physical efficiency test and proficiency test carried 10 marks and 15 marks
respectively.
The bone of contention in the present writ petition is 15 marks for the proficiency test in the recruitment process in question.
Clause 5(ix) of the advertisement dated 14.10.2010 clarified that the candidates having permanent driving license for Light Motor Vehicle
(LMV)/Heavy Motor Vehicle (HMV), shall be eligible for the post in question.
The said clause 5(ix) of the advertisement dated 14.10.2010 reads as under:-
“(ix) dkfuLVscy MªkbZoj in dh ik=rk gsrq vkosnd ds ikl vkosnu dh vafre frfFk ls iowZ dk cuk gqvk LFkkbZ MªkbZfoax ykbZlsa(lL MV/HMV)
gksuk vko';d gSAâ€
The recruitment process in question was governed by the Standing Order No.05/2010 dated 07.10.2010 issued by the respondents.
Mr.Sandeep Shah, learned counsel for the petitioner states that while the petitioner has been given 78 marks in the recruitment process, he has not
been considered for being awarded the marks against his LMV Driving License, whereas, the candidates having HMV Driving License have been
given 4 marks against such licenses.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that aforequoted clause 5(ix) of the advertisement dated 14.10.2010 clearly envisaged the
qualifying proficiency of permanent driving license of LMV/HMV, and therefore, as per the said clause 5(ix), while considering the merits of the
candidates and determining proficiency marks, the candidates holding LMV Driving License should have been given the preference, that was being
given to the HMV Driving License holders.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Union Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (2018) 1 SCC 149, wherein the Hon’ble Apex
Court has laid down that a class within class could not be created. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to make out a case that in the
recruitment process in question, the respondents have created a class amongst the HMV and LMV driving license holders, i.e. the candidates having
such driving licenses.
On the other hand, Mr.Parvez learned counsel appearing for Mr.Rajesh Panwar, learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents
submitted that the aforementioned Standing Order No.05/2010 dated 07.10.2010 clearly envisaged the proficiency marks for the post of Constable
Driver, to be distributed in the following manner:
 “(iii) FOR CONSTABLE (DRIVERS) 15 Marks
The proficiency test shall consist of the following practical tests:-
(a) Stop Test â€" as per Annexure ‘A’ 2 Marks
(b) Steering Test - as per Annexure ‘B’ 2 Marks
(c) Slalom Test - as per Annexure ‘C’
(d) Driving of Heavy Vehicles (alongwith 4 Marks possession of Heavy Vehicle Driving Licence)
(e) Removing three simple mechanical and 4 Marks electrical faults in the vehicle 3 Marksâ€
Learned counsel for the respondents has further pointed out that the last selected candidate in the OBC category has secured 81 marks, whereas
the petitioner has secured only 78 marks in the OBC Category.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court is
of the opinion that the aforesaid clause 5(ix) of the advertisement only stipulated the qualifying proficiency of the candidates, which was LMV/HMV
permanent driving license. Clause 5(ix) or any other condition in the advertisement did not stipulate computation of the marks of proficiency, which has
been separately given in the Standing Order 5/2010 dated 07.10.2010.
A bare perusal of the aforementioned Standing Order No.5/2010 makes it clear that the same, in no uncertain terms, stipulates award of 4 marks
against practical tests of driving the HMV alongwith possession of HMV Driving License. It is clear from such stipulation in the standing order that
LMV Driving License does not carry any marks in the proficiency, and therefore, the petitioner could not have been considered against the said four
marks to be given for proficiency in respect of permanent HMV driving license.
This Court also understands that the aforementioned clause 5(ix) of the advertisement is only a qualifying condition, and thus, the petitioner has not
been disqualified on account of his not having the permanent HMV driving license, and because he was having the permanent LMV driving license, he
has been found to be an eligible candidate. However, as far as computation of merit is concerned, the said clause 5(ix) does not have any correlation
with the computation of merit, which is separately stipulated in the Standing Order No.5/2010 dated 07.10.2010, and once the uniform criteria has been
adopted by the respondents for the complete recruitment process in question, it will not be appropriate for this Court to grant any indulgence in the
present writ petition, by issuing direction for awarding proficiency marks to the present petitioner against his permanent LMV driving license.
It is an admitted position that the petitioner, as per his merit, was not able to make it to the select list for the post of Constable Driver in the OBC
Category in District Sriganganagar, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.10.2010.
As far as challenge to the Standing Order No.5/2010 dated 07.10.2010 is concerned, the same cannot be interfered by this Court, as the
requirement of the employer/State is a standard requirement, and issuing the standing order is a right of the employer, so as to stipulate standard
format for computing the merit in the respective recruitment process for the post of Constable Driver.
Moreover, the condition, in respect of giving preference to the candidates having permanent HMV Driving License, does not seem to be bad, as it
must be based upon the requirement for driving the HMVs by the Constable Drivers, while working in the Police Department.
It is further seen by this Court that the LMV driving license holder is not disqualified, rather is an eligible candidate to be considered, and the
petitioner has been considered on his own merits, and thus, no interference is called for in the Standing Order No.5/2010 dated 07.10.2010, stipulating
uniform merit criteria for determining proficiency merit of the Constable Drivers.
As regards the precedent law of Maharashtra Forest Guards and Foresters Union (supra) cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court
finds that this case is not regarding creation of a class within class, but as per the stipulation in the Motor Vehicle laws, the LMV and HMV are two
different categories, and thus, the licenses are being separately prescribed for both the categories, and such categories are recognized by law. Hence,
the present is not a case of creation of a class within class. Thus, the precedent law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable in the
present case.
In light of the aforesaid observations, no interference is called for in the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.