VIJAY SONI Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner being Soni (Swarankar) by caste belongs to O. B. C. category. He was one of the candidates for RHJS. He had participated in the selection process without any protest and when the result of the selection is not palatable to him, is now turning round and assailing the selection process. THE prayer in the writ petition reads as follows: " (i) An appropriate writ, order or direction may be issued against the respondents quashing the advertisement vide Annex. 1 and the selections made vide the result-sheet vide Annex. 3 on the basis of the Annex. 1. (ii) Without prejudice to prayer clause (i), the selections in Other Backward Classes quota of the respondents Nos. 9 and 14 may be set aside on the basis of the grounds a,b and c. (iii) Without prejudice to prayer clauses (i) and (ii), the respondents may be directed to fill up the fourth vacancy of Other Backward Classes quota in order of merit. (iv) Without prejudice to prayer clauses (i), (ii), (iii), the actual carrying forward of the vacancies of SC/st vide advertisement Annex. 6 may be set aside and the vacancies of SC/st remaining unfilled may be ordered to be filled up by normal procedure and may be deemed to be vacant and only thereafter to be carried forward; and (v) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court thinks fit in favour of the petitioner may also kindly be passed in the interest of justice. "

(2.) THE Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court comprising of Hon'ble the Chief Justice Dr. AR. Lakshmanan and Hon'ble Ashok Parihar, J. , in the case of Pratap Singh vs. High Court of Rajasthan (1) and in the case of Ramji Lal Meena vs. THE High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr. (2), filed by OBC and ST candidates for the Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service respectively, elaborately discussed the following issues: (a) Determination of vacancies (b) Inviting applications (c) Screening Test (d) Interview (e) Recommendation and fresh initiation of selection process for SC/st category vide Notification dated 13. 02. 2001 on account of non-availability of suitable candidates in the general as well as reserve categories.

(3.) IN Union of INdia and another vs. N. Chandrasekharan and Others (4), the Supreme Court in para 13, has held as under: "we have considered the rival submissions in the light of the facts presented before us. It is not in dispute that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report. Even on merits, we agree with the learned senior counsel for the appellants that due regard must be had to the posts to which the candidates are to be promoted as well as to the nature of duties they have to discharge/perform and so viewing the marks given to the interview cannot be considered as disproportionately high or the spread of marks was done arbitrarily. "