Advocates:
['TANVEER AHMED', '', 'SAJID ALI', 'ILIYAS KHAN', 'DILIP SINGH SHEKHAWAT']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 3232 / 2013

Ranveer Singh Nehra son of Shri Suraj Bhan Nehra, aged about 35

years, resident of Village & Post Devrod, Tehsil Chidawa, District

Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

The State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary, Education

Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.

The RPSC through its Secretary, Ghooghara Ghati, Ajmer.

----Respondent

_____________________________________________________

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed

For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Shekhawat

_____________________________________________________

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA

Judgment / Order

09/12/2016

1.

The petitioner by way of this writ petition has challenged the

action of respondents in not giving appointment to the petitioner

on the post of PTI Gr.II.

2.

Brief facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that an

advertisement for the post of PTI Gr.II/III was issued by the

respondents on 14.12.2011. Corrigenda to the advertisement was

issued on 26.10.2012. The petitioner participated in the

(2 of 3)

[CW-3232/2013]

examination and submitted the requisite documents, however, the

respondents have not selected him for the post applied for and

feeling aggrieved thereof, this writ petition has been filed with the

prayer to issue direction to the respondents to select and appoint

the petitioner on the post of PTI Gr.II in the category of

outstanding sportsperson.

3.

Learned counsel for petitioner contended that the petitioner

being an outstanding sportsperson, having participated in

international events, and presently working in the North-Western

Railways after being selected in the category of “outstanding

sportsperson”, ought to have been selected and appointed on the

post of PTI Gr.II, and by not giving appointment to the petitioner,

the respondents have caused serious prejudice to the interests of

petitioner and the omission and arbitrary action on the part of

respondents in this regard, is required to be set right by issuing

appropriate order/direction in favour of the petitioner to select him

and giving him appointment in the category of “outstanding

sportsperson”.

4.

Learned counsel for the respondents contended that the

petitioner has not been selected and given appointment on the

post of PTI Gr.II in the light of Notification dt 23.9.1997 where

“outstanding sportsperson” has been defined, and since the

petitioner does not fall in the category of “outstanding

sportsperson” as defined in the Notification, he is not entitled for

the benefit of appointment as sought for.

(3 of 3)

[CW-3232/2013]

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

perusal of relevant documents available on record as also placed

before the court during the course of arguments, I do not find any

illegality or infirmity in the action taken by the respondents in not

selecting the petitioner for the post of PTI Gr.II as it cannot be

said that the petitioner falls in the category of “outstanding

sportsperson” taking into consideration the Notification mentioned

hereinabove. The condition stipulated in the Notification is as

under :-

“Has represented Indian Games, Asian Championship,

Common Wealth Games, World Championships, World

University Games, World School Games, SAAR Games or

Olympic Games where he (in an individual item) of his

team (in a team event) has obtained 1^st 2^nd and 3^rd

position.”

On perusal of the certificates it is seen that the petitioner does not

hold the requisite qualification to be considered for appointment

on the post of PTI Gr.II in the category of “outstanding

sportsperson”, and thus rightly been not selected and given

appointment.

6.

Consequently, the petition being devoid of any merit, is

hereby dismissed.

(JAINENDRA K