1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4020/2000 Ku. Kamla Khichar vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5341/2000 Mahaveer Prasad vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5340/2000 Hari Singh vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5342/2000 Devendra Singh Shekhawat vs. State & Ors. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.4021/2000 Smt. Mamta Dhaka vs. State & Ors. Date of order : 9/7/2008. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Govind Sharma for Shri Sanjay Mehla ) Shri K.C. Sharma ) for the petitioners. Smt. Parinitoo Jain, Dy. Govt. Counsel for the respondents. ****** All these writ petitions pertain to recruitment on the post of Teacher Gr.III, process of which was initiated by Zila Parishad, Sikar vide advertisement no.1/1998. Originally 232 vacancies of Teacher Gr.III were advertised. The respondents in the initial part of the selection process did not consider those who possessing qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational), however, a clarification was issued by the respondent Government in its department of Panchayati Raj on 26.2.2000 that the candidates having qualification of 2 Senior Secondary (Vocational) whose names figured in merit list for appointment as Teacher Gr.III but were not provided with such appointment for their qualification was not treated as equivalent, may now be provided with appointment as Teacher Gr.III out of the sanctioned post already released, since they have now obtained the prescribed qualification of Senior Secondary (Academic) after having passed bridge course. Based on these instructions, the respondents by their order dated 7.4.2000 appointed 23 candidates having such qualification, who qualified for such appointment on the basis of originally prepared merit list inserting them in the merit list so prepared. These 23 candidates include the names of 7 women candidates in different categories. Petitioner Ku. Kamla Khichar has asserted in C.W. No.4020/2000 that her name was mentioned at S.No.6 in the reserved list. The petitioner Mahaveer Prasad in C.W. No.5341/2000 has asserted that his name appeared at S.No.21 in the reserved list. Likewise petitioner Hari Singh in C.W. No.5340/2000 has asserted that his name 3 appeared at S.No.22 in the reserved list. The petitioner Devendra Singh has also asserted that his name appeared at S.No.18 in the reserved list and lastly petitioner Mamta Dhaka has come out with the observation that her name was kept at S.No.36 in the category of woman. All of them asserted that while they have been ignored, but similarly situated candidates having qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) who subsequently passed the bridge Course have been given appointment. Such appointment should however be made with reference to merit position of candidate who secured lesser marks than them. The respondents have controverted the aforesaid assertion and in the reply they have asserted that there were 24 such vacancies which were set apart for the candidates securing Senior Secondary (Vocational) out of 54 vacancies which were available to the Government at the time of clarification by the government. This is because 33 vacancies were allocated to the candidates having B.Ed from out of Rajasthan and were denied in spite of their placement 4 in the merit. Out of the 24, remaining post mean for candidate having Senior Secondary (Vocational) qualification it is contended that 4 vacancies were reserved for Scheduled Caste, 3 for Scheduled Tribe, 1 for OBC, 1 for women and remaining 15 were meant for general category. This is how the remaining 15 vacancies were available to be offered to general category. The State in its reply has denied the assertion made by the petitioners as to their placement in the merit of the reserved list claimed by them. This argument even otherwise does not deserve to be accepted because none of the petitioners has specifically asserted with reference to a candidate in the category of those seeking appointment with the qualification of Senior Secondary (Vocational) having subsequently passed bridge course. However, an additional argument has been raised by learned counsel appearing for one of the petitioners, Mamta Dhaka that out of total number of posts, 20% of the posts were offered for appointment to women candidate and the respondents have appointed only one women candidate namely Anita Gadhwal. This observation is however 5 found to be factually incorrect if the order of appointment dated 7.4.2000 is perused, which indicates that the respondents have appointed as many as 7 women candidates. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in these writ petitions. These writ petition are accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/