MAHENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the instant writ petition, petitioner seeks quashing the impugned order dated 10. 11. 1997 (Annex. 6); directing respondents to declare the result again after counting the name of Dr. R. L. Dayma in General Category and treat the petitioner to have been selected on the post of Assistant Professor in Orthopedics in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 30. 1. 1996 (Annex. 5 ).

(2.) PETITIONER, who is a member of Scheduled Caste, has to his credit the qualifications of M. B. B. S. Degree and Master's Degree in Orthopedics. After being selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for Short, "the Commission"), petitioner was appointed as Civil Assistant Surgeon in May, 1990. Thereafter, in pursuance to the advertisement issued by the State Government, he applied for the post of Assistant Professor and on being selected, vide order dated 18. 4. 1991 (Annex. 1), petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor on urgent temporary basis and his term of appointment was extended upto 30. 6. 95. The Commission issued the advertisement dated 10. 12. 1993 (Annex. 2) for selection to nine posts of Assistant Professors including two posts reserved for Scheduled Caste candidates; however the Commission did not hold the selections. The Commission again issued an advertisement dated 29. 7. 94 (Annex. 2) inviting applications for ten posts of Assistant Professors and it was specifically made clear that those who had applied in pursuance to earlier advertisement Annex. 2, need not apply again. Vide notice Annex. 4 dated 23. 8. 95, the Commission fixed the date of screening as 1. 10. 1995. PETITIONER challenged the order Annex. 4 by way of filing SBCWP No. 3101/1995 and this Court passed an interim order directing respondents to consider petitioner's case for selection on the post of Assistant Professor in Orthopedics without subjecting him to screening. PETITIONER appeared for interview and his result was kept in sealed cover. The result of the petitioner was produced in the Court on 31. 01. 96 and it was found that he was selected and his name was placed in the merit list, therefore, the said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 30. 1. 96 (Annex. 5) and the respondent Commission was directed to declare the result of the petitioner and forward his name to the State Government for making appointment in accordance with law. The special Appeal filed by the respondents against the order Annex. 5 stood dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 17. 5. 1996. On filing Special Leave Petition by the respondents, initially the Hon'ble Supreme Court granted interim order which was vacated on 24. 9. 1947. In terms of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Commission declared the result of those candidates which was withheld. By that time, the number of posts increased to 15 and as per 16% reservation in favour of Scheduled Caste candidates, 3 posts were to be filled up by giving appointment to the candidates belonging to scheduled caste. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent Commission, vide impugned order Annex. 6 dated 10. 11. 1997, recommended the names of Dr. Ratan Lal Dayma and Dr. Babu Lal Khojiti as Scheduled caste candidates in the main last and Dr. Banwari Lal Chopra in the wait list as Scheduled Caste candidate and ignored the name of the petitioner. Hence this writ petition.

(3.) A perusal of impugned order Annex. 6 dated 10. 11. 97 shows that the merit list and reserve list declared on 20. 12. 95 had been modified and the names of Dr. Ratan Lal Dayma and Dr. Babu Lal Khajoti have been shown as selected candidates from main merit list of scheduled caste candidates and the name of Dr. Banwari Lal Chopra has been shown as a selected candidate from the reserve list of scheduled caste candidates. A perusal of para 11 of the reply filed by the Commission shows that the marks secured by Dr. Ratan Lal Dayma, Dr. Babu Lal Khajoti and Dr. Banwari Lal Chopra were 54, 53 and 52 respectively whereas the petitioner secured 51 marks. The respondents have come with the specific case that the name of petitioner stands after the names of these there persons. There is no dispute that 3 posts were reserved for scheduled caste candidates. The grievance of the petitioner is that Dr. R. L. Dayma secured position in between the candidates placed at serial number 7 and 8 of the General category but his name has been shown against the select list of scheduled caste candidate and had his name been shown in General Category, the petitioner would certainly be entitled for appointment in question.