RADHESHYAM MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging action of the respondents in not considering his case for appointment on the post of Physical Training Instructor (PTI) Grade-III. The respondents by advertisement dated 28.7.2003 notified 92 vacancies for appointment on the said post, out of which 11 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner as well as the respondents No. 4 & 5 applied for such appointment. Interview for the aforesaid appointments took place on 29.3.2004.

(3.) Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that call letters were issued on 26.3.2004 for asking the petitioner to appear in the interview on 29.3.2004. Learned counsel has produced on record photo-stat copy of the envelop by which the call letter was received by him. According to the petitioner, this letter itself was received in the Post Office of Phuleta on 30.3.2004 and, therefore, it was delivered to the petitioner on 31.3.2004 and by that time, interviews had already taken place on 29.3.2004. The petitioner immediately on receipt of call letter approached the respondent No. 3 namely; District Education Officer (Secondary) Jaipur First, Jaipur with his grievance, but he refused to consider the case of the petitioner. Resultantly, respondents No. 4 & 5, below in merit than the petitioner, have been selected and appointed, but the petitioner was denied the right to consideration for appointment. Learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Surendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,2006 1 WLC(Raj) 525 and argued that this Court in exactly identical circumstances, directed the respondents to appoint the petitioner.