IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1947/1997 Ishwar Singh Yadav Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another Date of Order ::: 25.03.2010 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq Shri Amardeep Atwal for petitioner Shri Ganesh Meena, Government Counsel for respondents #### By the Court:-
Heard learned counsel for parties.
This writ petition was filed by petitioner Ishwar Singh Yadav way back in the year 1997 inter-alia with prayer that respondents be directed to consider his case for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor Gr.III.
Shri Amardeep Atwal, learned counsel for petitioner, contended that respondents have committed illegality by appointing ex-serviceman against post meant for OBC candidate. According to advertisement, five vacancies were reserved for OBC and two for ex-serviceman. However, only two persons of OBC were given appointment and three ex-servicemen have been appointed against the quota of OBC on the basis that they were also members of OBC. Such mixing of categories is not attracted by Article 16 of the Constitution of India.
Shri Ganesh Meena, learned Government Counsel appearing for respondents, opposed writ petition and clarified the position by stating that there were only five posts for OBC category and last candidate of OBC, who was appointed, was having 81.53% marks while the petitioner could obtain only 81.33% marks, and therefore he stood at Serial No.29 in the merit. In other words, respondents submit that no candidate lesser meritorious than petitioner in OBC was appointed.
As far as reserved post of ex-serviceman quota is concerned, learned Government Counsel appearing for respondents contended that while reservation to OBC category is vertical, reservation granted to ex-serviceman is horizontal and therefore latter reservation is to be provided within the former. There were two posts meant for ex-servicemen and they were all filled in according to such principle. Learned counsel is contended that appointments were made in the year 1997 and none of the appointees is joined as party to present writ petition.
Upon considering arguments of learned counsel for parties and perusing material available on record, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(Mohammad Rafiq) J.
//Jaiman//