1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4154/2002. Prahlad Kumar Nagar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.861/2002. Chothmal Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.910/2002. Jaswant Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. WITH S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4095/2002. Ram Kumar Balai & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : : Date of Order 20.3.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Virendra Lodha with Mr. Vinod Goyal for the petitioner. Mr. Zakir Hussain, Addl.Govt.Counsel for the State. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners aggrieved by refusal of respondents to appoint them on the post of PTI Grade-III. 3. According to the petitioners, respondents advertised 21 posts out of which 16 posts were meant for General candidates, 4 posts for Scheduled Caste, 3 posts for 2 Scheduled Tribe and 6 posts for Other Backward Caste totaling 29 posts. Respondents however appointed candidates of general category only upto merit No.7 and remaining nine vacancies of general category were left unfilled and out of six posts reserved for OBC, only one candidate was given appointment and remaining five vacancies were left unfilled. Respondents illegally appointed some of the candidates later, who were not within the merit and were much below the petitioners’ merit. Instances of Shri Nafish Khan and Shri Rajnish Kumar Gochar are given in this respect. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that appointment could not be denied to some of petitioners only because they had bachelor degree in Physical Education from Nagpur University. The Division Bench of this Court in DB Civil Special Appeal No.564/2001 has held that such qualification is valid. It is argued that once the names of petitioners were shown higher, the persons below in merit could not considered for appointment, more particularly when petitioners are fully eligible. Learned counsel has also cited from the merit list and has argued that petitioner No.4 Shri Kailash Chand Meghwal was shown at Serial No.6 in the merit 3 list and was the first candidate of SC category to have appeared and, therefore, on his merit he was liable to be treated as a general candidate and his appointment in any case could not be withheld because he figured sufficiently high in the merit list and secured more marks than the general category candidate. 5. Respondents in reply to the writ petitions have clarified that seven candidates were actually appointed out of available number of 21 vacancies. The candidates appearing at Serial No.4, 5 & 6 in General category 1, 3 & 4 in OBC category and 1 to 6 in Female category were not appointed because they were not considered eligible. However, subsequently due to interim order passed by this Court in SB Civil Writ Petitions No.419/97, No.931/99, No.324/99, No.2759/96, No.5844/98 and No.6283/98, 14 vacancies were kept vacant for all the petitioners namely; Shri Mohan Lal Meel & Ors., Shri Habbiullah Khan, Shri Nafis Khan & Ors., Baby Tabbsum, Krishna Sharma and Shri Brijesh Mewara, as per different orders passed by this Court. 4 6. Shri Zakir Hussain, learned Additional Government Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that appointment of these candidates were withheld because they were allowed to compete on the basis of their Higher Secondary Vocational Course. Subsequently when they cleared bridge course under order of Government, some of them were appointed as per the specific order passed by this Court. Instances of such persons are given i.e. Shri Nafis Khan, Shri Rajneesh Kumar Gochar in OBC category and Shri Azharuddin in General category. It is, therefore, submitted that no illegality has been committed. 7. On the last date of hearing when these cases were listed, Office was directed to give status of all the aforesaid petitions. As per the report of the Office, all these writ petitions are disposed of. Learned counsel for the respondents has also clarified that pursuing to the orders passed by this Court in these writ petitions, those who are possessing Higher Secondary Vocational Course and passed bridge course were appointed. However, there is no clear explanation to the contention that when Shri Kailash Chand Meghwal, who was otherwise at Serial No.1 in General category and Serial No.1 in SC Category, was not appointed 5 whereas he appears to be entitled for appointment. If he has appeared in merit of general category having secured more marks in this list, his case ought to be considered for appointment in general category itself or otherwise after addition of those candidates, who have possessed Bridge course. In view of fact that all the aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of, these writ petitions are also disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of Shri Kailash Chand Meghwal after verifying his educational qualification and his merit. If he is found to have secured more marks then the last candidate in general category, he should be considered for appointment in general category or otherwise in SC category having secured marks maximum for SC. If Shri Kailash Chand Meghwal upon being found suitable is appointed and his appointment would relate to date the candidate below him was so appointed. However, for the intervening period, he would be only entitled to notional benefits. In the result, all the writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.31 to 33. 6