Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
ARUN MONGA
Astha Gaur D/o Shri Kn Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Having remained partly successful in the selection process pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2007 (Annex.1), the petitioner (working as Platoon Commander) herein seeks appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector (instead of Platoon Commander) in general category seeking parity with her similarly situated counter-parts, who have been given appointment by virtue of this Court judgment dated 20.09.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009.
2. Briefly speaking relevant facts are that the respondents advertised 151 posts for Sub-Inspector (A.P.), 87 posts for Platoon Commander (Sub-Inspector R.A.C.), and 6 posts for Sub-Inspector (M.B.C.). Among these, 22 posts in the Sub-Inspector (A.P.) cadre, 13 posts in the Platoon Commander (Sub-Inspector R.A.C.) cadre, and 1 post in the Sub-Inspector (M.B.C.) cadre were reserved for OBC candidates. In response to this advertisement, the petitioner applied for the position and took the examination. In the final result her total score was reduced by 5 marks due to the scaling process.
2.1. However, vide a judgment dated 20.9.2011 in SBCWP No. 3705/2009 (Ramnarayan Bhanwariya Vs. State of Rajasthan), this Court struck down the scaling formula adopted by t
The court upheld the appointment process, ruling that the petitioner did not meet the necessary cut-off marks for Sub-Inspector, thus denying her claim for appointment.
The main legal point established is that the plea for parity with appointed candidates is not applicable if the petitioner had not been appointed, and the court has the authority to quash an order if....
Candidates with higher merit cannot be discriminated against on procedural grounds, emphasizing that merit should dictate appointments as per Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The court emphasized the limited grounds on which it can interfere with the decision of the selection committee and upheld the principle of non-interference in the comparative merits of candidates.
The Department must uniformly apply corrections to examination scoring errors to all affected candidates, ensuring no discrimination and timely relief without waiting for individual petitions.
The court ruled that petitioners failed to demonstrate a common cause of action and selectively presented grievances, leading to the dismissal of their petition regarding the Teacher Grade III select....
The principle of res judicata and the finality of judgments were central to the court's decision.
Gujarat Public Service Commission – Waiting list - It cannot be said that GPSC has committed any error in preparing select list and putting petitioners in wait list, as petitioners have secured marks....
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
