Ravindra Singh Shaktawat @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the category of TSP

(General) for the post of ‘Vanpal’ in pursuance of the advertisement dated 26/10/2015.

The petitioner applied for the post of ‘Vanpal’ pursuant to the advertisement dated 26/10/2015 (Annex.1), the condition in the advertisement

providing for confining consideration of the candidature of the candidates from the same Van Mandal resulted in petitioner not being called for

interview despite the fact that the petitioner fell in the merit, as the vacancies were for Dungarpur District and the petitioner is a resident of Udaipur.

Similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan & Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ

Petition No.4387/2016 decided on 25/11/2016, wherein, considering the issue involved, the following directions were given :

“In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners except qua petitioners Neeta Patidar and Vaibhav Chouhan are allowed.

The respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners, who have been interviewed by the respondents pursuant to the directions of this

Court and have been awarded marks, for 22 unreserved posts lying vacant at Pratapgarh Range and 9 unreserved posts lying vacant at Udaipur

Range, in accordance with what has been indicated hereinbefore.

It is made clear that the appointments already made pursuant to the advertisement other than 22 and 9 unreserved posts shall not be affected on

account of this order by this Court. It is also made clear that the petitioners, who have been interviewed and presently are not falling within the cut off

marks would also be considered based on the fresh cut off which would be arrived at by the respondents after the said 22 & 9 posts are included for

the purpose of consideration. It goes without saying that the applicants Arvind Labana & others would also be considered alongwith other eligible

petitioners for the 22 & 9 vacant posts.â€​

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained through RTI the merit list as well as the list of candidates selected,

from which it is apparent that though the petitioner was on merit no.2 in the written examination, he was not interviewed and was not accorded

appointment, whereas, persons, who were lower in merit in the written examination were accorded appointment.

Further submissions have been made that out of seven posts, two posts under the general category are vacant on account of the fact that those who

had joined pursuant to selection have since resigned from the posts.

Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that as the selections have already taken place and selected candidates have already joined,

the mere fact that some candidates have now resigned, it cannot be said that posts are vacant and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered by

the respondents based on the submissions which are now sought to be made.

It is further submitted that the petitioner is yet to be interviewed and it is only in case that after interview the petitioner obtains more marks than the

cut off marks, then only the petitioner would get a right to be appointment and merely because he stood in merit in the written examination is not

sufficient for him to claim appointment.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Insofar as the ground on which the petitioner was not interviewed is concerned, the said issue stands covered by the judgment of this court in the case

of Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra), wherein, it was inter alia held that the attempt on the part of respondents to restrict the vacancies qua the

candidates of the area for which the recruitment was being made was not envisaged by the stipulation as indicated in the notification dated 4/7/2016

and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to consideration of his candidature based on the application made by him for Dungarpur range.

There is substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents that merely because the petitioner stood in merit in written

examination ipso facto will not make the petitioner entitled for getting appointment, as he would be required to face interview and in case he stands

higher in merit than the last cut off in the category in which the petitioner is seeking appointment, then only he would be entitled to be considered

against said post.

So far as the submission made regarding the position not being vacant is concerned, admittedly the petitioner had approached this Court well in time

and notices were issued, in certain similar cases interim orders were also passed and merely because interim order was not granted in the present

case, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not entitled for being considered when admittedly vacant position is available at Dungarpur range.

In view of the above, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed, the respondents are directed to interview the petitioner and in case the marks

obtained by the petitioner in written examination and interview are more than the last cut off in the unreserved category, the petitioner may be

accorded appointment on the vacant position. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.

In the peculiar circumstances of the case, in case the petitioner is found eligible for grant of appointment, the petitioner may be accorded appointment

and consequential seniority and notional benefits from the date when the post against which the petitioner is appointed has fallen vacant.