BHAGWAN SAHAI Vs. RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred to question correctness of the order Dt. 27.08.2013 passed by learned Single Bench rejecting S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5824/2003. The petition aforesaid was preferred by the appellant -petitioner alleging non -adherence of the roster prescribed to execute reservation while making appointments to a civil service. As per the appellant, the respondents initiated a process of selection under a Notification Dt. 19.07.2002 for appointment to the post of Stenographer Grade -II against 5 existing vacancies. Against the 5 advertised vacancies, the respondents made appointment of 8 persons and out of those, only one person, namely, Shanti Lal, was appointed against the vacancy reserved for Scheduled Castes. As per the appellant, he was second person standing in the list of empanelled candidates, thus, appointment should have been accorded to him by adhering the roster system.

(2.) LEARNED Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition arrived at the conclusion that the appellant -petitioner failed to establish his right and further that the vacancy given to Mr. Shanti Lal adequately satisfies the requirement of the roster applicable to execute reservation.

(3.) WE have considered the arguments advanced and also the record available. The respondents made appointments against the existing vacancies, details of which are given in Para 2 of the reply to the writ petition with a specific assertion that no roster point pertaining to accommodate a person belonging to Scheduled Castes was available while making appointments of 8 persons. Suffice to mention here that under the applicable 100 point roster system, vacancy No. 5 pertains to Scheduled Castes and that has already been satisfied by giving appointment to Mr. Shanti Lal. The next point is at S. No. 13. In such circumstance, there was no occasion for the respondents to give appointment to the appellant as Stenographer Grade -II. Suffice to mention that it is not the case of the appellant that roster point was starting from some other number than the roster point No. 1. In view of the factual position noticed above, we do not find any wrong with the order impugned. Thus, the appeal dismissed.