In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench **
1-Civil Writ Petition No.4728/2008
Naveen Kr. Sharma & (16) Ors Versus State & Ors.
2-Civil Writ Petition No.4267/2008
Hukam Singh & (12) Ors Versus State & Ors.
3-Civil Writ Petition No.4415/2008
Pradeep Kumar & (8) Ors Versus State & Ors.
4-Civil Writ Petition No.5631/2008
Ratanlal Joshi & (6) Ors Versus State & Ors.
5-Civil Writ Petition No.1846/2009
Ashok Kr Chouhan & (2) Ors Versus State & Ors.
6-Civil Writ Petition No.5509/2009
Santosh Kr. Swami & (2) Ors Versus State & Ors.
7-Civil Writ Petition No.14323/2009
Pawan Kumar & Anr Versus State & Ors.
Date of Order ::: 01/12/09
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Hanuman Choudhary, for petitioners
Mr. SN Kumawat, AAG and for respondent PSC
Mr. Ganesh Meena, Govt. Counsel for respondents
Since common question is involved, hence are being disposed of together at joint request by present order.
All the petitioners applied for appointment to the posts of Teachers (Primary & Upper Primary School) duly advertised vide notification dt.30/10/2006 under Rajasthan Panchayatiraj Rules, 1996 (Rules, 1996) and in the Teachers (Primary & Upper Primary School) competitive Examination, 2006, they participated in process of selection initiated by respondent-RPSC; and were finally found to be suitable but were not appointed against number of vacancies available and advertised by the PSC.
Grievance of petitioners is that despite vacancies duly advertised being available with the respondents, and their names being found place in the order of merit, have not been considered for appointment.
Counsel for respondent PSC was directed by this Court on 13/11/09 to seek instructions and inform last cut-off marks for respective categories in General, OBC and Sc/ST having been taken note of by respondents PSC for purposes of giving appointment to applicants having been finally selected.
However, affidavit has not been filed, but a statement of last cut of marks (revised) alongwith date of birth in respective categories including TSP area has been produced, which reads ad infra:
Upper Primary-Latest Revised
(Cut-Off Marks)
Category
Cut-Off Marks
Date of Birth
General
General
Woman
106.67
92.67
10/08/78
28/12/75
Scheduled Caste
General
Woman
88.67
64.67
16/09/78
08/02/78
Scheduled Tribe
General
Woman
78.00
48.00
10/07/87
15/05/82
OBC
General
Woman
101.33
86.00
02/07/83
06/02/72
Disabled Person-LD
94
30/04/80
TSP Area-
Scheduled Caste
General
Woman
Scheduled Tribe
General
Woman
–
47.33
No candidate available
–
08/12/75
Counsel for respondents, however, informs that as regards vacancies available other than TSP area, State Government has undertaken to fill up the same but vacancies reserved for TSP can be filled only from TSP area, inasmuch as such vacancies cannot be converted to be filled up by general procedure. But, ultimate fact remains that unfilled vacancies (other than TSP) being available are to be filled by the procedure provided under the Rules, 1996.
Petitioners whose cut off marks & date of birth are falling within those as referred to in the statement of cut off marks (supra), are entitled to be considered for appointment as per order of their merit in case of availability of vacancies being filled by the procedure, as has been considered by this Court in Rajesh Kr. Yadav Vs. State (CWP-6397/2006 decided vide order dt.20/02/09) wherein criteria adopted by the Commission was quoted ad infra:
Before examining controversy, it will be appropriate to refer the criteria adopted by the Commission. The same is quoted as under:-
i)When two or more candidates having secured equal marks then preference is given to the candidate who is more/elder in age;
ii)When marks and age is equal then preference is given to the candidate whose academic qualification is higher;
iii)When marks, age and higher academic qualification are same then preference is given to the candidate whose marks are more in Senior Secondary and Graduation course.
It is relevant to mention here that it has also been informed that the criteria, as referred above, has been finally upheld by the Division Bench of this court.
Since availability of vacancies has not come on record but this fact cannot be ruled out that such vacancies other than reserved for TSP area, duly advertised to be filled by the procedure provided under Rules, 1996 in order of merit of respective selectee in terms of criteria of inter-se merit adopted by the Commission reference whereof has been made (supra).
Consequently, all these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider candidature of petitioners for appointment on the post of Teacher (Primary & Upper Primary Schools) on the basis of their selection made pursuant to advertisement dt.30/10/06 strictly in order of merit as per statement (supra) against available vacancies other than reserved for TSP area; and in case either of petitioners does not find place in order of merit in respective category for appointment, respondents shall inform each of them about his placement and reasons for which he could not be held eligible for appointment. Compliance be made within two months.
No order as to costs.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p5/
4728CW08-Dec1(7)PSC.doc