1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3155/2006 (Mahaveer Prasad Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.) Date of order : 11.7.2008 P R E S E N T HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. R.C. Joshi, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L. Tiwari, Dy. Govt. Counsel for respondent No.1 and 3. Mr. Deepak Choudhary, Dy. Govt. Counsel for respondent No.2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this case, the petitioner has applied for recruitment on the post of Banking Assistant in pursuance of advertisement Annexure-1. As per the advertisement, there is a procedure laid down for selection under which the candidates were required to appear in the written examination and proficiency test of computer as well. It is also provided that the candidates are required to pass proficiency test of computer but the marks obtained in the proficiency 2 test of computer are not counted for the purpose of reckoning merit. The case of the petitioner is that earlier roll number 12010491 was alloted by the respondents and he appeared in the written examination under the above roll number in which he was declared successful. Later on another roll number was allotted to the petitioner for appearing in the computer proficiency test. As per the petitioner, there was no occasion for the respondents to issue new roll number but he was illegally allotted new roll number 3277461 to appear in the computer proficiency test. It is also stated that the said roll number was shown as duplicate roll number. Meaning thereby, the petitioner was illegally allotted fresh roll numbers and declared unsuccessful. Therefore, the respondents have committed illegality and petitioner is entitled to be called for interview. It is also submitted that as per the certificate Annexure-6, petitioner is physically handicapped person, therefore, he was to be given relaxation in the qualification as per the notification dated 1.8.2005 and qualification for passing computer proficiency test was to be exempted for the petitioner because the petitioner is possessing academic qualification and he was declared successful in the written examination. The 3 candidature of the petitioner was rejected because he was declared unsuccessful in computer proficiency test in which he was to be given relaxation being physically handicapped person. Therefore, it is prayed that the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on the post of Banking Assistant. Per contra, by way of filing reply, it is pointed out by the respondents that petitioner was allowed to appear in the written test in which he was declared successful but later on as per the requirement of the advertisement and the rules he was to appear in the computer proficiency test. The petitioner was appeared in the computer test but he was declared unsuccessful, therefore, no case is made out for interference with regard to dispute raised by the petitioner that another roll number was issued to him. It is submitted that petitioner is not controverting the fact that he was allowed to appear in the computer proficiency test. Meaning thereby an opportunity to appear in the computer test was allowed to the petitioner by the respondents but as per result of computer proficiency test placed on record by the respondents, petitioner has been declared unsuccessful. For grounds raised by the petitioner for granting benefit of reservation of physically 4 handicapped category, it is argued by learned Dy. Govt. Counsel that petitioner did not apply under the reservation of physically handicapped quota, nor any document was filed to show that he is physically handicapped, therefore, he was not allowed to appear as physically handicapped candidate. In these circumstances, it is prayed that the petitioner was granted all opportunities as provided under Annexure-R-1 to compete for the post of Banking Assistant but after passing written examination, he was declared unsuccessful in the computer proficiency test, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for any direction for exemption to pass computer test and appointment under the reservation quota of physically handicapped category. I have considered the rival submissions made by the parties and perused the entire record of the case. Upon perusal of Annexure-1, it is clear that as per the qualification and procedure laid down in the rules, the candidate is required to appear in the written examination, so also, to appear in the skill test for computer proficiency. Although it is provided that the marks awarded in the skill test will not be counted for the purpose of preparing merit list but it is mandatory for a candidate to pass skill test 5 in which the petitioner was declared unsuccessful and he was granted opportunity to appear in the said test. In my opinion, the issuance of another roll number is totally irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the present controversy. The petitioner was allowed to appear in both the examinations, therefore, now he cannot raise any voice after appearing in the computer skill test on the basis of allotting fresh roll number, therefore, the contention of the petitioner is totally baseless and deserves to be rejected because as per Annexure-2 of the reply, it is obvious that the petitioner was declared unsuccessful. It is also evident from the record that the petitioner did not apply in the category of physically handicapped quota, so also there is no reservation provided for physically handicapped persons. In this view of the matter, petitioner's claim is totally unfounded for granting exemption to physically handicapped persons because no reservation is provided for physically handicapped person. In this view of the matter, when the petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the skill test of computer, which is mandatory requirement as per rules, then, there is no question of interference in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS), J. 6 arun