Advocates:
['VINOD PUROHIT', '', 'SANJEET PUROHIT', 'JP JOSHI', '', 'SUNIL JOSHI', 'LR BISHNOI DYGC']

1

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22/2009

Yogita Dhaka. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

ORDER

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22/2009

Yogita Dhaka. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Date of order

:

9.4.2015

HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the petitioner.

Mr.Tarun Joshi

) for the respondents.

Mr.LR Bishnoi, DyGC

)

Mr.Mahipal Singh Deora

)

…

1.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2.

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner

has approached this Court seeking a direction for being

appointed on the post of Veterinary Officer in the

recruitment process conducted by the RPSC in the year

2007.

3.

The case as set up by the petitioner is that even

though she fared extremely well in the interview held for

selection on the post of Veterinary Officer but despite

that she was denied appointment in an absolutely

arbitrary fashion.

2

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22/2009

Yogita Dhaka. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

4.

Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of

the respondents wherein it is specifically mentioned that

the interview board constituted to hold the interview did

not find the petitioner suitable for being appointed on the

said post after evaluating her performance and

accordingly, the petitioner was denied appointment as a

Veterinary Officer.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

procedure of interview as conducted by the interview

board was absolutely arbitrary and unjust.

6.

At his request, the Court had directed the learned

counsel for RPSC to keep the merit list of the successful

candidates available for perusal of the Court. The merit

list was made available by learned counsel Mr.Joshi today

in the Court. The list reflects that as many as 309

candidates were found suitable for appointment as

veterinary officers and 143 names were kept in the

reserve list.

7.

I have heard the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the parties and have considered the relevant

Rules as well as the documents available on record.

8.

As per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry

Service Rules, 1963 which apply to the case at hand, the

Commission is required to prepare a list of the candidates

3

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22/2009

Yogita Dhaka. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

whom it considers suitable for appointment to the post

concerned, arranged in the order of merit and forward

the same to the Government. Upon a plain reading of the

Rule, it is evident that all that required of the

Commission is to prepare a list of the candidates whom it

considers suitable for appointment to the post concerned,

arranged in the order of merit and then to forward the

same to the Government.

9.

The list need not contain the names of the persons

who were not found suitable for selection. The petitioner

has not disputed that performance analysis by interview

is the only prescribed mode of selection as per the

advertisement pursuant whereof the petitioner applied

for selection. The petitioner has not alleged in the writ

petition that any of the members of the interview board

was holding any personal bias against her. In this

background, this Court is of the opinion that the wisdom

and satisfaction of the interview board in rejecting the

petitioner’s candidature on the ground of suitability

cannot be gone into and upturned by this Court in the

exercise of its extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

10.

As a consequence of the above discussion, this

Court has no hesitation in holding that the petitioner is

4

S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.22/2009

Yogita Dhaka. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

not entitled to the relief prayed for in the instant writ

petition.

11.

Resultantly, the instant writ petition, being devoid

of any merits, is hereby dismissed.

12.

No order as to cost.

(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.

/S.Phophaliya/