JUDGMENT :

1. Feeling aggrieved by the respondents’ action of not according him appointment even though his name appeared in the merit list, the petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court.

2. The petitioner vied for the post of Physical Training Instructor Grade – III (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTI Grade – III’) pursuant to recruitment notification dated 04.05.2018 issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board – respondent No.2.

3. Though, the petitioner has 40% disability in his vision, he submitted the application form as an ‘OBC candidate’ category and not as a ‘PH candidate’.

4. As petitioner’s name was not shown in the list of selected candidates, he preferred a writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.680/2020.

5. A reply to the said writ petition was filed by the Selection Board & the State Government, wherein it was contended that the post was reserved for Locomotor Disability (LD/CP), whereas the petitioner belongs to visually impaired category (B/LV), hence, he was not recommended, rather the recommendation made was withdrawn.

6. In the first petition, the petitioner had come with a specific case that he had never applied under PH Category and during document verification, he had bonafidely produced his disability certificate. It was contended that the petitioner has secured more marks than cut off of his category (OBC-NCL), hence, appointment cannot be denied.

7. During the course of first round of litigation, the matter was deliberated in detail, whereafter the Section Board had come up with a stand that petitioner’s name has been recommended for appointment. On 11.11.2020, said writ petition thus, came to be disposed of with following observation and directions:-

“In view of the fact that the Staff Selection Board has already recommended petitioner’s name, the proceedings of the present writ petition are hereby closed.

Needless to observe that the respondent-State shall proceed in furtherance of the recommendations so made expeditiously preferably within a period of 12 weeks from today.

If any of the petitioner’s grievance still persists, he will be free to take up appropriate remedies.

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.”

8. It is noteworthy that the Selection Board had already issued a list dated 13.12.2019, whereby the names recommended by it had been recalled. Said list (placed at page No.67 of the instant writ petition) includes petitioner’s name, indicating that the petitioner having produced a certificate of disability showing 40% impairment in his vision was selected in ‘PH-BL category’ though no post for ‘BL category’ was reserved.

9. Mr. Dungawat, learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court’s attention towards copy of petitioner’s application form and highlighted that the petitioner had competed in the recruitment process as an OBC candidate and not as a ‘PH category’ candidate. He emphasized that the petitioner has admittedly secured more marks than the cut-off of his category (OBC-NCL) and argued that since the petitioner had neither claimed reservation as PH candidate nor any post was advertised for visually impaired candidates, the respondents could not have rejected petitioner’s candidature.

10. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as abundant caution or maybe for the purpose of getting posting nearer to his place of residence, the petitioner bonafidely produced his disability certificate, but the same cannot be used to cancel his selection, which was not under ‘PH category’.

11. Mr. Sanadhya, learned counsel appearing for the Selection Board submitted that as far as Board is concerned, it had considered petitioner’s candidature as an ‘OBC candidate’, as he had secured more marks than the cut-off of his category but granting appoitment is in the domain of the State.

12. He submitted that it was only on account of objection raised by the Department of Secondary Education, petitioner’s selection was earlier canceled by the order dated 04.12.2019, wher