VIKRAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The petitioner applied for the post of Teacher Gr. III in pursuance of the advertisement No.10/98 issued in the year 1998. According to petitioner, the petitioner is physically handicapped person and was entitled for certain benefits as handicapped person. According to petitioner that benefit was not given to the petitioner and, therefore, the action of the respondents is illegal.

(3.) The petitioner in his writ petition in para No. 2 stated that petitioner is handicapped person and certificate under rule 7 of Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 has been issued, copy of which is Annex. 1 and another certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is Annex. 2. The petitioner deliberately and purposefully did not mention the dates of these documents in the pleading and also deliberately did not mention which of the document was submitted at the relevant time before the authorities of the respondents. The certificate Annex. 1 is dated 27th June, 1999. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, this document was not submitted at the relevant time, but the Annex. 2 dated 20th June, 1998 was submitted at the relevant time by the petitioner. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner liable to be rejected simply because of the reason that the manner in which the petitioner pleaded the case clearly reveals that the petitioner has not pleaded that Annex. 2 has been submitted at the relevant time. Assuming for the sake of the arguments that above document was submitted at the relevant time, even then, admittedly, this was not the certificate on the basis of which any benefit could have been given to the petitioner. The respondents in their reply submitted that certificate Annex.1 was submitted by the petitioner on 29th August, 2000 along with application Annex. R/1. The petitioner deliberately did not mention that though petitioner is submitting the Annex. 1 along with the writ petition as a first document, but he did not submit that document even till the date of filing of the writ petition. It appears that the petitioner deliberately did not mention this fact to gain the sympathy of this court for getting issuance of notice to the respondents. Not only this, but from these facts, it is clear that even when the petitioner filed the appropriate document, that too, even after lapse of about two years, the petitioner straightaway filed the writ petition in the year 1999 and, thereafter, after passing of almost one year, he submitted the certificate or copy of the certificate Annex. 1 before the respondents under impression that when any reservation is made for a person like petitioner (handicapped), the employer required to keep the post vacant for indefinite period and should wait that the candidate may submit the relevant certificate of disability even after years together. The conduct of the petitioner disentitles him from getting any relief. The rejection of the candidature on the day when it was rejected cannot be said to be wrong, but it was just and proper.