NAND RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 10. 8. 1998 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as put forward by him in this writ petition is as follows:- THE respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee, Sri Ganganagar by publishing an advertisement in newspapers invited applications for filling up 118 posts of Gram Sewak-cum-Secretary in various Gram Panchayats. THE applications were to be submitted in the prescribed proforma. According to the petitioner, the said advertisement was issued most probably in the month of July/august, 1996. It was mentioned in the said advertisement that out of 118 posts, 60 posts shall be for general category, 25 for OBC category, 19 for Scheduled Castes category and 13 for Scheduled Tribes category. THE further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the above advertisement, he submitted his application in the prescribed proforma alongwith requisite documents and he was allotted roll No. 5359. THE further case of the petitioner is that in pursuance of the aforesaid advertisement, a written examination of the candidates was taken and thereafter, a merit list was prepared and the candidates were called for interview and through letter Annex. 1 dated 20. 12. 1996, the petitioner was also called for interview on 2. 1. 1997 and he appeared for interview on 2. 1. 1997 before the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee prepared a final select list of 118 candidates and also prepared a waiting list and in the waiting list of OBC candidates, the name of the petitioner appeared at serial No. 1. A copy of the waiting list of OBC category is marked as Annex. 2. According to the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee gave appointments to 118 candidates as Gram Sewak and sent them to different Gram Panchayats for assuming charge. THE further case of the petitioner is that out of 118 candidates, who were selected and given appointments, only 114 candidates joined, as a result of which, 4 posts remained vacant and out of that 4 posts, 2 posts belonged to general category; one post belonged to OBC category and the remaining one post belonged to Scheduled Caste category and for that, the letters of respondent No. 2 dated 17. 6. 1997 and 4. 8. 1997 (Annex. 5 and Annex. 6 respectively) may be referred to. THE further case of the petitioner is that he made representation on 1. 6. 1998 to the respondent No. 2 District Establishment Committee stating therein that since one post became vacant in OBC category and since he stood first in the waiting list of OBC category, therefore, he may be given appointment against the said one vacant post of OBC category. A copy of the said representation dated 1. 6. 1998 is marked as Annex. 3. THE further case of the petitioner is that one Gurender Singh, who stood at serial No. 1 in the waiting list of general category, was also given appointment against the vacant post of general category. According to the petitioner, Gurender Singh filed representation for appointment in May, 1997 and he also filed writ petition before this Court being S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 80/98 and he was given provisional appointment as per directions of this Court. THE further case of the petitioner is that his case also stands on the same footing as that of Gurender Singh. But, since the petitioner was not given appointment, hence, this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. THE main case of the petitioner is that since one of the candidates belonging to OBC category did not join duties, therefore, it was incumbent on the part of the respondents to have given appointment to the petitioner against the said vacant post of OBC category as the petitioner stood at serial No. 1 in the waiting list of OBC category and not giving of appointment to the petitioner is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and their case is that the select list was prepared on 25. 1. 1997 and the petitioner submitted the representation Annex. 3 on 1. 6. 1998, but the term of that select list had already expired prior to 1. 6. 1998 and thus, the petitioner had no right whatsoever to ask for appointment in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 1996. THE further case of the respondents is that the case of the petitioner does not stand on the same footing as that of Gurender Singh because Gurender Singh filed writ petition before this Court prior to expiry of period of select list, whereas the petitioner approached this Court after a long delay. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) THERE is also no dispute on the point that out of 118 candidates, who were selected and given appointment, one person belonging to OBC category did not join.