KAMLESH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the grievance that he has qualified the written examination held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission pursuant to advertisement issued on 15.09.1997 for the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant and under the Right to Information Act when he submitted application for the first time, an information was made available to him on 11.09.2009 that he was not considered for appointment since his name does not find place in the select list.

(2.) The post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant was advertised by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide advertisement dt.15.09.1997 and seven vacancies were reserved for member of scheduled tribe and in terms of advertisement 35% marks in each compulsory paper and 40% in the aggregate were the minimum qualifying marks to be obtained and there would be no viva-voce test and as per the mark-sheet issued to him by the Commission the petitioner secured minimum qualifying marks in the compulsory papers and also in the aggregate. It appears that after the mark-sheet was served upon him he never raised grievance at any point of time at a later stage. Thereafter, an advertisement was published on 9.9.2008 pursuant to which the petitioner did not apply as informed to this Court being overage as such has not participated in the process of selection. Thereafter he had submitted application to the Commission under the RTI Act pointing out in regard to backlog vacancies of ST and and pursuant thereto, he was informed vide communication dt.11.09.09 that he could not be considered for appointment as his name does not find place in the order of merit.

(3.) Counsel submits that the petitioner secured minimum qualifying marks and since the vacancy remained unfilled pursuant to the advertisement dt.15.09.97 and against unfilled vacancy, he has a right to be considered for appointment and advertisement issued thereafter in 2008 will not deprive him from consideration for appointment and delay will not be considered to be fatal denying his legitimate grievance in seeking appointment since no third party has been conferred during the intervening period.