HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4321/2022

Rameshwar Prasad Kumawat S/o Shri Navaratna Kumawat, Aged

About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 5-6, Khushi Vihar Colony, Sirsi

Road, Bhankrota, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Directorate Of

Ayurveda, Rajasthan, Ashok Marg, Mali Mohalla, Ajmer,

Rajasthan-305001.

2.

Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan Ayurveda

University, Through Vice-Chancellor, Karwar, Nagour

Road, Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Ajatshatru Mina

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG

Mr. Vishesh Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

29/03/2022

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved

in this writ petition has been considered and decided by the

Coordinate Bench of this court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the

matter of Kailash Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.2505/2022) wherein on 23.02.2022, the following

order was passed:-

“As the facts of all the cases are

essentially similar except dates of

certificates involved, facts in the case of

Kailash Kumar (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.

2505/2022) are being taken into

consideration.

These writ petitions have been filed

by the petitioners aggrieved against the

non-inclusion of their names in the

(2 of 6)

[CW-4321/2022]

provisional merit list for recruitment of

Nurse / Compounder Junior Grade vide

advertisement No.1/2021 for Non-TSP area

and seeking a direction to the respondents

to consider them as eligible as OBC Non-

Creamy Layer (NCL) / MBC candidates.

An advertisement dated 17.6.2021

(Annex.3) was issued by the respondents

for the recruitment. The petitioners filled

up the application form inter alia claiming

their status as OBC (NCL) / MBC

candidates.

The respondents issued public notice

dated 18.10.2021, requiring the candidates

whose name had appeared in the list of

candidates qualified for Nurse /

Compounder vacancy in OBC category /

MBC to appear for document verification.

The petitioners claim that during

course of document verification, OBC

certificates issued on 13.10.2018 and

3.9.2021

(Annex.2

and

Annex.7

respectively), were produced by the

petitioner along with other requisites.

However, in the provisional merit list, the

name of the petitioner did not appear.

A notice (Annex.9) was published by

the respondents calling for objections to

the provisional merit list requiring the

candidates to personally remain present

and raise objection along with proof.

The petitioner filed a representation

inter alia indicating that he had produced

both the certificates (Annex.2 and

Annex.7) and that the guidelines issued by

the Social Justice and Empowerment

Department dated 9.9.2015 provided for

the validity of OBC (NCL) certificate for

three years along with an affidavit and

produced an affidavit in terms of the

guidelines dated 9.9.2015 also. However,

as the petitioner apprehended that the

respondents would not take the same into

consideration, the present petition has

been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioners

made submissions that the condition of the

advertisement,

provided

that

the

candidates were required to produce ‘latest

certificate’ pertaining to OBC, which was

produced by the petitioner (Annex.7),

however, as the requirement indicated was

that the certificate must be valid on the

date of application / last date provided for

application, the certificate (Annex.2) was

(3 of 6)

[CW-4321/2022]

also valid along with the affidavit produced

by the petitioner and, therefore, the action

of the respondents in not considering the

candidature of the petitioners as OBC

(NCL) / MBC candidates, is not justified.

Reliance has been placed on

judgment in Ram Kumar Gijroya v. Del