MUKESH SOWARA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Arjun Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.R. Punia, Additional Advocate General alongwith Mr. Jamwant Gurjar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.

(2.) THE facts in brief leading to filing of the instant petition in short is that on 27.2.2012 an advertisement was issued by the Zila Parishad, Udaipur soliciting candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III by direct recruitment. Apart from setting out the conditions of eligibility for participation in the process initiated thereby, it was clearly mentioned in Note (II) under Clause (6) thereof that the post reserved in terms of the notification dated 12.9.2007 (the vires whereby is under challenge in the instant petition) would be filled up by the local candidates in the TSP area.

(3.) MR . Arjun Purohit argued that as the petitioner was duly entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 12.9.2007 as a TSP candidate, the ground for denial for the said benefit to him as cited by the respondents is wholly unjustified. In the alternative, he has questioned the validity of the notification dated 12.9.2007. According to him the limitation of the benefit in terms of the notification to the local candidates as envisaged therein amounts to hostile discrimination. Mr. Punia has argued in response that as the petitioner had participated in the process initiated by the advertisement dated 27.2.2012 which clearly mentioned that the reservation of posts as referred to in the notification dated 12.9.2007 would be filled up in accordance therewith, at this belated stage, the present writ petition is without any substance.