GIRISH LALCHANDANI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition, the petitioner Girish Lalchandani has approached this Court assailing the order (Annex.9) dated 3.10.2012 whereby, his selection and appointment as a Teacher Gr.III Level-II (Maths) pursuant to a recruitment process conducted by the respondents in the year 2012 was cancelled.

(2.) The petitioner herein applied for selection as a Teacher Grade III Level II (Maths) in the recruitment initiated by the respondent Zila Parishad Pratapgarh vide notification dated 24.2.2012. Indisputably, the petitioner hails from the OBC category. It may be mentioned here that no OBC reservation was provided in the recruitment notification. However, as per Clause 10 of the recruitment notification, male candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC and SBC as well as female candidates belonging to General category were entitled for 5 years relaxation in age. Clause 10 of the notification which is relevant for the disposal of the writ petition is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:- <JUDIMG>1641749-1</JUDIMG>

(3.) The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition wherein, a plea has been taken that the petitioner might be belonging to OBC category but he applied in the General category in the questioned recruitment. The OBC certificate was not submitted alongwith the application form and therefore, the respondents were perfectly justified in cancelling the petitioner's appointment because he had crossed the age of 35 years as on 1.1.2013 and was overage in terms of the above Clause of the recruitment notification. The petitioner, has filed on record of the writ petition, the certificate issued by the Tehsildar cum Executive Magistrate, Pratapgarh dated 27.2.2010 verifying that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category. The genuineness of the said certificate has not been disputed by the respondents in their reply. Shri Ramesh Purohit learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the plea taken by the respondents that the petitioner applied in the General category and therefore, he is not entitled to the age relaxation of 5 years despite belonging to OBC category is totally unjustified. As per Shri Purohit, no reservation for OBC category candidates was provided in the recruitment notification and therefore, the petitioner applied against the General category seats. He was successful in the selection process and was given appointment vide order (Annex.7) dated 10.9.2012. He was also allowed to join his post vide office order (Annex.8). The cancellation of his appointment was not preceded by any notice or opportunity to show cause. He relied upon the order dated 14.6.2016 passed by this Court in the case of Shyam Lal Mathat Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3020/2015) and urged that the age relaxation provided on the basis of caste and gender has no link with reservation. If the petitioner had been given a notice prior to cancelling his appointment, he would have readily provided his OBC certificate to the authorities. Thus, he urged that the impugned order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner is grossly illegal and arbitrary and therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. Per contra, Smt.RR Kanwar, Govt.Counsel referring to the reply filed by the respondents, urged that as the petitioner did not mention his category as OBC candidate in the application form, the authorities had no option but to cancel the appointment of the petitioner because a General category candidate is not entitled to age relaxation under Clause 10 of the recruitment notification.