SHYAM SUNDER HATILLA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to the respondents to issue selection list of Scheduled Caste candidates, and if the petitioner comes within merit in the selection list, then for a direction to provide appointment to the petitioner, on the post of Drawing Teacher Gr. I, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) The allegations of the petitioner are, that he belongs to Scheduled Caste category (SC), and possesses the academic qualification of Graduation. The petitioner also claims to be physically handicapped. For this he has produced Disability Certificate Annexure-4. With this background it is alleged, that the respondent no.3 Rajasthan Public Service Commission (R.P.S.C.) issued advertisement inviting application for recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.I, in various subjects, including Drawing, in July, 1991 being Annexure-5, whereby 12 vacancies were advertised, out of which two were reserved for S.C., and two were reserved for S.T. Candidates. The petitioner being eligible, applied, and also appeared in the written test, and successfully passed it. The copy of the result has been produced as Annexure-7. The allegation of the petitioner is, that vide letter dt. 5.9.1992, the petitioner was called for interview, which was held on 7.10.1992, wherein the petitioner appeared along with all testimonials. The allegation then is, that the petitioner is presently working as Teacher Gr. III since December, 1985, and according to the petitioner it is apparently clear that the petitioner is possessing all requisite qualification to be appointed. However, after completion of interview the R.P.S.C. has published the select list of general candidates, and Scheduled Tribe candidates only, and no result of S.C. candidates has been declared, and that, it is best known to R.P.S.C., as to why it has not issued selection list of S.C. category candidates. With these averments, the aforesaid reliefs have been claimed. In substance, the grievance is, that no selection list has been issued by the R.P.S.C. regarding S.C. category candidates.

(3.) A reply has been filed by the R.P.S.C., contending inter alia, that the petitioner did not apply as physical handicapped candidate, nor there was any such vacancy reserved in that category. Then submitting factual aspect it was pleaded that in response to the advertisement 221 applications were received, including that of the petitioner, and the screening test was conducted for short listing, wherein the petitioner cleared, and was called for interview. Then, regarding interview, it was pleaded that after holding interview, the Commission issued the select list on 8.10.1992, by which nine candidates were found suitable, and were selected, and that the petitioner was not found suitable by the Commission, therefore, his name could not be included in the select list. It was pleaded that the contention, of list of selected candidates for S.C. having not been declared, is misconceived. It was maintained, that the list of all selected candidates, which have been found suitable, was declared, and the names of the persons who were not found suitable, have not been included. It was further pleaded, that the petitioner was informed about his non selection, vide communication dt. 24.10.1992, copy whereof has been produced as Annexure R/1. Then, it was pleaded that the candidature of the petitioner was considered against the reserve vacancy, reserved for S.C. candidates, and he was not found suitable even against that vacancy. It was pleaded that the petitioner has not been denied selection on the ground of his not possessing requisite qualification, rather he has not been found suitable on his merit, and therefore, he has not been selected.