Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Manish Choudhary S/o Late Shri Narayan Singh – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15938 of 2022
Decided On : 07-08-2024
Recruitment - Departmental Candidates - Rajasthan State and Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 - The court interpreted the eligibility criteria for departmental candidates and the reservation provisions, concluding that the petitioners did not meet the necessary experience requirements, leading to the dismissal of their petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the recruitment process for Junior Marketing Officer posts, claiming their eligibility against the posts reserved for departmental candidates, while the respondents argued that the petitioners did not meet the experience criteria set forth in the relevant rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners failed to qualify for the posts as they did not possess the required five years of continuous service experience, as mandated by the advertisement and the applicable rules.
Issues: Whether the petitioners were eligible for the posts reserved for departmental candidates based on their experience and the interpretation of the relevant recruitment rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the eligibility criteria for the posts were clearly defined in the advertisement and the rules, and the petitioners did not fulfill the necessary conditions, particularly regarding the experience requirement.
Result: The petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
ORDER :
1. Present petition is filed with the following prayers:
(b) declare the candidature of the Respondent No. 6 to 12 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the statutory provisions provided under the law and quash and set aside the candidature of Respondent No. 6 to 12 against the posts reserved for departmental candidates advertised in the advertisement dated 20.07.2021.
(c) direct the Respondent No. 1 to 5 to consider the candidature of the Petitioners against the posts reserved for departmental candidates advertised in the advertisement dated 20.07.2021 and declared the Petitioners as successful candidates for making appointment against the posts reserved for departmental candidates advertised in the advertisement dated 20.07.2021.
(d) Any other order which your lordships may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the Petitioners and in the interest of justice.”
2. The crux of the matter is that the respondent No. 5 vide advertisement dated 20.07.2021 (Annexure-1) invited applications for recruitment of personnel under the Non-TSP (General) area category, under the Rajasthan State and Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as rules of 1999) for filling 988 posts including State Services and Subordinate Services for direct recruitment from open market and for posts reserved for departmental candidates - already working in the respondent department. In pursuance to the said advertisement the petitioners who belonged to Rajasthan Agricultural Services and have been serving various Agricultural Marketing Yards under the directions of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 applied under the category of Subordinate services (mentioned at Sr. No. 14). Under the said category there had been 8 posts for Rajasthan Agricultural Services (Junior Marketing Officer). Howsoever, out of the total vacancies of Junior Marketing Officer, 12.5% posts had been reserved for Substantive Ministerial Employees of Department of Agricultural Produce Market committees.
3. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioners had submitted that resultant to the said advertisement, the preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the result thereof was declared on 19.11.2021 (Annexure-2). The petitioners had qualified the said examination. Thereafter, the mains examination qua the qualified candidates was scheduled on 20.03.2022 and 21.03.2022 and the result thereof was declared on 30.08.2022 (Annexure-4). It was further averred that the petitioners failed to procure their name in the final list of selected candidates; however, the private respondents were declared successful and were thereafter appointed. It is pertinent to mention that the private respondents were appointed as Junior Assistant (probation-trainee) on 04.06.2020 and their service as Junior Assistant had been confirmed on 08.06.2022.
4. At this juncture, learned counsel representing the petitioners had placed reliance upon the terms and conditions of advertisement dated 20.07.2021, and had submitted that it is explicitly stated that the requisite criteria for the posts reserved for departmental candidates is minimum five years of continuous service experience, whether officiating or substantive (till the first day of January, 2022). Moreover, as per Rule 4, Schedule- I and Schedule-II of the rules of 1999, wherein, other necessary mandates had been enumerated, the private respondents have failed to fulfill said requisite of possessing five years of experience, whereas, the petitioners are duly eligible. Hence, ought to
Eligibility for recruitment must strictly adhere to the criteria set forth in the relevant rules and advertisements, particularly regarding experience requirements for departmental candidates.
A bonafide mistake which does not prejudice a third party should be allowed to be cured.
The recruitment process for constables must adhere to the stipulated conditions in the advertisement, ensuring fairness and transparency in candidate selection.
Employees appointed in reserved categories prior to state bifurcation are entitled to claim reservation benefits in the successor state, and arbitrary rejection of their candidatures violates constit....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the selection process must adhere to the terms of the advertisement and the prescribed rules, and any deviation from these norms is impermissi....
Public Service Commission - Promotional benefit - Candidates who have not taken birth in the cadre, the services would be counted prior to the date of appointment which cannot be allowed.
The court affirmed that the principles of reservation must be applied as per the existing regulations, distinguishing between horizontal and vertical reservations.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
