KAUSHAL KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner Kaushal Kumar Gupta for assailing the order Annex.8 dated 13.1.2012 passed by the respondent RPSC, Ajmer and praying for a direction to the respondents to offer him appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the respondent RPSC in the year 2004 with all consequential benefits and also to direct appropriate action against the officials of RPSC and the State Govt. including their prosecution etc.

(2.) The case involves a chequered long standing history of extended and repeated litigation and thus, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the writ petition are narrated herein below for the sake of ready reference.

(3.) The respondent RPSC advertised posts of Teacher Grade-III in the year 2004. The petitioner, a general category candidate claiming to be eligible applied and appeared in the written examination conducted by the RPSC. He secured 134 marks and upon being declared successful was summoned for interview. RPSC published cut off of the successful candidates in the general male category at 134 marks. The result of the recruitment process was declared on 5.1.2005. However, despite making the cut off, the petitioner's name was not recommended for appointment on which, he filed a writ petition no.4743/2006 in this Court. The respondents RPSC and the State Government took a stand in the said writ petition that the petitioner had secured 134 marks and his name was included in the merit list but he could not be recommended for appointment because as per the criterion applicable to the selection process, if more than one candidates secured same number of marks, those elder in age were to be given preference. Another candidate who had secured 134 marks was having date of birth as 16.6.1970 and the petitioner's date of birth was 18.10.1970, therefore, being younger in age, petitioner was not recommended for appointment by the RPSC. The said writ petition preferred by the petitioner was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 29.7.2008 in the following terms :-