Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 461
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DINESH MEHTA, JJ.
Karu Lal Patidar and Others - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Others - Respondent
Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1530 of 2018
Decided On : 24-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Nikhil Dungawat, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Sharma on behalf of Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
The court emphasized the importance of specific reservation for Non-TSP candidates and the equitable participation in the recruitment process.
Headnote:
Delay Condonation - Reservation for Non-TSP Candidates - The court found that the omission of specific reservation for Non-TSP candidates was not justified and directed the advertisement of vacancies for their participation in the recruitment process.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were aggrieved by the direction to follow regular procedure for vacancies and the lack of reservation for Non-TSP candidates. The court had permitted the petitioners to participate in the process through an interim order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned judgment was justified and appropriate, and dismissed the appeal, stating that the petitioners did not have greater equity or right over others or meritorious candidates.
Issues: The issues involved the reservation for Non-TSP candidates and the direction to advertise vacancies for their participation, as well as the petitioners' contention regarding competing with others who never approached the Court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the omission of specific reservation for Non-TSP candidates was not justified and directed the advertisement of vacancies for their participation, and that the petitioners did not have greater equity or right over others.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed by the court.
Civil Misc. Application No. 02/2018:
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The application is allowed.
Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1530/2018:
3. The appellants are aggrieved by the direction issued to the respondents to follow the regular procedure mandated by rules, i.e. to advertise the vacancies and fill them in accordance with rules.
4. The appellants grievance was that no reservation post was set apart for candidates belonging to the Non-TSP areas for recruitment process in question. During the pendency of proceedings, by interim order dated 04.10.2013, the Court had permitted the petitioners to participate in the process (even though there was no specific advertisement for this purpose). In the final relief, the Court issued a direction and found that non-mention or exclusion of TSP candidates as a specific category, was not justified. As a consequence, the Court had directed that the 23 posts which were to be filled by the petitioners, ought to be advertised and granted them opportunity to participate in the process.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/appellants urges that the learned Single Judge erred in the directions given because the petitioners/appellants would now have to compete with others who never approached the Court. It is also argued that the vacancies, that ought to have been set apart for Non-TSP areas, were larger in number, i.e. 54 and not 23.
6. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned judgment is justified and appropriate having regard to the overall circumstances. That the petitioners were a fortunate few, who stepped forward after detecting omission of the State, did not clothe them with greater equity or right that they alone have preference over others or meritorious candidates, though preference was granted on purely interim basis. As far as omission of the learned Single Judge to direct the advertisement of the larger number, i.e. 54 is concerned, this Court notices that the learned Single Judge was cognizant of the fact that 6 years had passed and in the circumstances, it would not be appropriate to issue such a direction. Furthermore, on 28.11.2016 the learned Single Judge made another interim order which had the effect of freeing the posts other than the 23 posts for recruitment, which were filled in the meanwhile.
7. For the above reasons, there is no merit in the appeal; the same is accordingly dismissed.
