BRIJENDRA SINGH MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition involves a short but important question of law. The question is: whether denial of appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Marketing Officer merely on the ground of pendency of two criminal cases is legally sound? In other words whether action of the respondents denying appointment to the petitioner is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution? By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus to give him appointment, with all consequential benefits, on the post of Junior Marketing Officer with effect from 7.11.1996 when persons junior to him were given appointment.

(2.) FACTUAL position is not much in dispute. Pursuant to an advertisement No. F. 7(26)/RE/94 -95 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC') inviting applications from eligible candidates to fill up five vacancies of Junior Marketing Officer by direct recruitment, petitioner applied for the same. He appeared in screening examination and after found successful he was called for interview. Therefore, on the basis of merit he was selected for appointment and his name was included in select list prepared by the RPSC. One Pooran Chand, who was lower in merit to the petitioner was included in the reserve list. Then, the petitioner received a letter, dated 23.9.1996, from Additional Director, Agriculture Marketing requiring him to fill up attestation form for verification of his antecedents/character, which was duly filled up and sent by him. Thereafter, the Director, Agriculture Marketing issued office order on 7.11.1996 appointing five persons as Junior Marketing Officer ignoring petitioner's name but including the name of Shri Pooran Chand from reserve list who was lower to the petitioner in merit. The petitioner, then, submitted a representation on 10.12.1996 to the Director, Agriculture Marketing drawing his attention to the fact that person lower in merit to him was given appointment. He also asked to intimate him the reason for denying him appointment. When there was no response as per the petitioner, he met personally with the Director and Deputy Director, but without any positive result.

(3.) IN light of above factual position the question that requires consideration is whether denial of appointment to the petitioner is just and legally sound?