SANGEETA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner is claiming her right of appointment on the post of Forest Guard on the ground that she is belonging to OBC category but unfortunately OBC certificate was not annexed with the application form because in the first advertisement, it was not disclosed that reservation will be provided to the OBC candidates but in the subsequent advertisement (Annex.4), it was specifically provided that reservation will be provided to the candidates of OBC category. Upon above information, the petitioner submitted her all documents including the certificate of OBC at the time of interview after passing the written examination conducted by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although certificate of OBC was submitted at the time of interview but respondents did not consider the case of the petitioner under the category of OBC for providing appointment on the ground that no such certificate was submitted by her before the last date of submitting the application form. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that that even though the petitioner is not entitled to be considered under the category of OBC then also against the vacant post of General Category, petitioner is entitled for appointment because her name was included in the waiting list at S. No. 3. As per petitioner, the candidate Hari Singh, who was at Sl. No. 1 did not join duties and Ashok Ratnu who is at Sl. No. 2 in the waiting list has already been provided appointment against the post of OBC, therefore, now the petitioner is entitled for appointment against the available vacant post.

(2.) FOR the purpose of aforesaid claim in para No. 17 of the writ petition, it is specifically pleaded by the petitioner that the one candidate Dhansukh was provided appointment against the vacancy of ex -servicemen quota of General category but his services were terminated for the reason that he was not belonging to reserved category and appointment was made by mistake.

(3.) IN view of above, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per settled law petitioner is entitled to be considered for appointment against the post which is available due to termination of the services of Dhansukh but respondents did not operate the waiting list for providing appointment to the petitioner against the post which is fallen vacant due to termination of the services of Dhansukh. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of this Court towards the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Sat Pal, : AIR 2013 SC 1258 : LNIND 2013 SC 90, in which following adjudication has been made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No. 11, 12 and 18 which reads as under: