Candidates applying under a specific category cannot later claim rights under a different category if they do not meet the eligibility criteria for that category.

ORDER

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, respondents may kindly be directed to treated the candidature of petitioners under General category candidates being the petitioners fill their application form under General category and deposited fees according to general category candidates and consequently given appointment to petitioners on the post of sweeper in the larger interest of justice.

(ii) Any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioners;

(iii) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner"

2. The facts in nut-shell, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that an advertisement No.1/2018 dated 13.04.2018 was issued for the recruitment on the post of Safai Karmchari in different Municipalities.

3. The petitioners in pursuance of said advertisement, applied at Jobner Municipality, where total 31 posts were advertised by the respondent-Department.

4. The petitioners have pleaded that though they belonged to Scheduled Caste Category, however, while filling the form, they had applied under the General Category.

5. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondents undertook the relevant process of filling of 31 posts as advertised, and 13 posts were reserved for General Male Category and 4 posts were reserved for General Female Category.

6. The petitioners have pleaded that when their names were not included in the select list, they sought information from the respondents, under the Right to Information Act and the respondent-Department supplied them information that only two application forms were received under General Category Candidates.

7. The petitioners have pleaded in the writ petition that since the respondents received only two application forms of General Category Candidates and 17 posts were reserved for General Category Candidates and as such, the respondents have committed an illegality in drawing lottery and declined appointment to the petitioners.

8. The petitioners have pleaded that in spite of fulfilling the requisite qualification and eligibility, they have been wrongly deprived from the appointment.

9. Learned counsel-Ms. Sudesh Kasana with the best of her ability has made the following submissions:-

(i) The procedure adopted by the respondents for drawing the lottery was not warranted as per the circular dated 29.05.2018, which has been issued by the respondents as number of candidates were less than the number of posts reserved for General Category Candidates.

(ii) Learned counsel submitted that the category wise reservation was provided to the candidates and by clubbing them in open quota for the purpose of draw of lottery, has extended the zone of consideration and as such, the procedure adopted by the respondents, is vitiated in the eyes of law.

(iii) The petitioners were the only two candidates in General Category, their candidature could not have been rejected by putting them with other applicants for drawing the lottery.

(iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Swaroop Kumar Acharya V. State of Rajasthan, 2017 (3) W.L.N. 362 and judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Spl. Appeal Writ No.1733/2018 (Virendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr.) & other connected matters, vide common order dated 09.08.2019.

(v) Learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the judgment passed in the case of Swaroop KUmar Acharya Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), submits that if less number of candidates are applicants in a particular category, the draw of lottery has been deprecated by this Court.

(v) Learned counsel for the petitioners on the strength of the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Virendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) ha