Jagdish Bhakar vs State of Rajasthan - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 2073

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 2073

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Jagdish Bhakar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Rajasthan and other - Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14955 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13861 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13866 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13875 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14704 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14767 of 2018, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14944 of 2018.
Decided On : 09-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Mohan Singh Shekhawat for Mr. Kailash Jangid, Mr. Umashankar Dhakad, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG a/w Mr. Rishi Soni, Advocate.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ petitions for selection and appointment of Special Teacher - Petitioners belonging to reserved category argued for upward movement into general category based on higher marks - Court ruled that petitioners taking concession in qualifications are not entitled to such movement as per precedent set in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (Paras 2-5).

(B) Legal Principle - Individuals who avail benefits of reservations in qualifications may not move up to general category, as established in precedent cases.

Facts of the case:
Petitioners contested recruitment for Special Teacher posts under advertisement dated 31.07.2018, claiming higher marks than general category yet sought upward movement that was denied.

Findings of Court:
The court upheld that advantage taken under reserved category disallows upward movement to general category.

Issues: Whether candidates from reserved category with higher marks than general category can claim appointments in general category positions.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that taking any advantage of the reserved category disqualifies upward movement to the general category according to established law.

Result: Writ petitions dismissed.

Table of Content
1. the basis for the petitions and the nature of the recruitment dispute. (Para 1 , 2)
2. clarification on eligibility and upward movement in categories. (Para 3 , 4)
3. interpretation of relevant case law on category movement. (Para 5)
4. dismissal of petitions and disposal of applications. (Para 6)

ORDER :

(Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.)

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clause is being taken from the case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13861/2018.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner against the cut-off marks of unreserved category while given the 5% relaxation in his percentage marks of graduation for selection and appointment post of Special Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) (MR) Social Studies as per the condition no.9.4 of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018.

C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to prepare afresh selection while considering the name of the petitioner as per his qualification and as having higher marks than the cut-off of his respective category for the post of Special Teacher (Level-II) (MR) Social Studies in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018.

D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process and provide the appointment as per his qualification and merit status on the post of Special Teacher (Level-II) (MR) Social Studies in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018, with all consequential benefits."

2. The bone of contention is that the petitioners, who are belonging to reserved category, sought recruitment arising out of advertisement dated 31.07.2018 for Teacher Grade-III and associated posts. The point of dispute is that for the recruitment in question, the merit of reserved category has gone above the merit of the general category and therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is an upward movement and thus, the persons belonging to the reserved category concerned and having secured higher marks than the General Category, while being in their respective reserved category, ought to be given appointment on the post in question, against the post meant for the general category candidates.

3. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Pankaj Sharma clarifies two things which are common to all the matters; one is that all the petitioners are below the merit of general category and second thing is that upward movement has been ruled out from the general category, which is admittedly lower, as the same would have been possible only if the petitioners had not taken any concession apart from fee in the reserved category concerned. It is admitted position that the petitioners had taken a concession of relaxation of 5% in the basic qualification of graduation and thus, they are not entitled for the upward movement.

4. In support of above contention, learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2017) 12 SCC 680 and Gaurav Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2018) 11 SCC 352.

5. This Court, after examining the position of law as well as submission made hereinabove, finds that in Deepa E.V. (supra) and Gaurav Pradhan (supra) clearly laid down the law that if a person takes any advantage o

Click Here to Read the rest of this document