Advocates:
['BM AGGARWAL', 'VK AGGARWALVK AGGARWAL VK AGGARWAL', 'SS LADRECHA', 'VD DADHICH', 'KULDEEP MATHUR', 'DS THIND', 'DR PS BHATI']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

: O R D E R :

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2275/2011.

(Dhanroop Mal Nagar Vs. Engineering College, Bikaner & Others)

DATE OF ORDER : May 03, 2013

P R E S E N T

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

____________________________________

Mr. Vijay Kumar Aggarwal for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Ladrecha for respondent No.1.

Mr. V.D. Dadhich for respondent No.5.

Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for respondent No.4.

Dr. P.S. Bhati for respondents No.6 & 7.

BY THE COURT :

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner

for direction to the respondents to provide appointment on

the post of Lecturer in Information Technology as

Physically Handicapped (PH) candidate in pursuance of the

advertisement Annex.-6 and to quash order Annex.-9

whereby an order was passed by the Selection Committee

that none of the candidates is found suitable for the post of

2

Lecturer in Information Technology. Further, it is prayed

that re-direction of the post to respondent No.4 as per

Annex.-10 may be set aside and consequently the order

passed by respondent No.3 dated 09.03.2008 (Annex.-12)

may be quashed.

Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement was

issued by the Engineering College, Bikaner on 13.12.2007

in which the posts of Professor, Reader and Lecturer in

various disciplines of Engineering faculty were advertised.

The petitioner applied in the physically handicapped

category against the post reserved in PH category for

appointment on the post of Lecturer in Information

Technology. In the advertisement, for the subject

“Information Technology” 3 vacancies were advertised, out

of said 3 vacancies, 1 post was kept unreserved, 1 for SC

category and 1 post was kept reserved for the Physically

Handicapped category.

The petitioner was called for interview and he

appeared on 16.03.2008 before the Interview Board as a

Physically Handicapped candidate. Similarly, respondent

No.4 also applied for the post of Lecturer in MCA

3

(unreserved) being a handicapped candidates and he was

also called for interview for the post of Lecturer in MCA.

Admittedly, the petitioner and respondent No.4

Vishal Goar both applied in different subjects i.e.,

Information Technology and MCA but, strangely enough,

the selection committee gave opinion that none of the

candidates is found suitable for appointment on the post of

Lecturer in Information Technology; but, case of

respondent No.4 Vishal Goar was considered for the post

of Lecturer in MCA (UR), in which, he was in merit.

Contention of the petitioner is that even though

respondent No.4 did not apply for the post of Lecturer in

Information Technology as physically handicapped

candidate but due to mala fide on the part of the

respondents the candidature of respondent No.4 was

considered against the post of Lecturer in Information

Technology because in the interview for the post of

Lecturer in MCA he secured 36 marks and said decision

was taken to adjust two candidates viz., Rakesh Punia and

Sanjay Tejasvee for the posts of Lecturer in MCA (UR).

According to the petitioner, when the petitioner

4

applied for the post of Lecturer in Information Technology

in the PH (physically handicapped) category, then, there

was no occasion for considering the candidature of

respondent No.4 for the said post but an illegal decision

was taken by the selection committee to shift respondent

No.4 from the post of Lecturer in MCA (UR) to the post of

Lecturer in Information Technology and while doing so

adjusted respondent No.4 on the said post even though

respondent No.4 did not apply for the post of Lecturer in

Information Technology. Contention of the petitioner in

the writ petition is that for the post of Lecturer in

Information Technology (PH) the selection committee

opined that none of the candid