S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6293 and 6614/2009. Case: Satpal and Ors. Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors.. Rajasthan High Court

Case Number:S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 6293 and 6614/2009
Party Name:Satpal and Ors. Vs Oriental Bank of Commerce and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: J.K. Suthar, Adv. for R.S. Choudhary and Viveek Agarwal, Advs. and For Respondents: M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Deepak Chandak, Adv.
Judges:Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Issue:Constitution of India - Articles 16, 16(1), 16(4), 335
Judgement Date:February 07, 2017
Court:Rajasthan High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

  1. These two writ petitions are being decided by passing a common order, as the issue involved in both the writ petitions is of similar nature.

  2. The petitioners by way of these writ petitions have prayed for quashing the final result of the successful candidates in clerical cadre and to issue final select list strictly by following rules and regulations of the reservation policy and for considering their candidatures on the post of Clerk as they belong to Ex-servicemen OBC Category.

  3. The facts which require consideration for disposal of the cases are that the Oriental Bank Of Commerce had issued an advertisement in November 2008 inviting applications for appointment in the clerical cadre for various States of India. For Rajasthan, there were total 143 posts, which had bifurcated in the various categories of General, SC/ST &OBC. In the advertisement, it was provided that the reservation for Ex-servicemen shall be horizontal and the horizontal reservation shall be provided category-wise, as per their own category.

  4. The petitioners participated in the selection process as Ex-servicemen candidates. The written examination consisted of two parts i.e. subjective and objective examination. The subjective examination was only qualifying and the marks obtained in that examination, were not to be counted while preparing the merit list. Candidates who stood in sufficient merit, as per the cut-off, in the objective paper, were called for interview. The final merit was to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the objective paper as well as in the interview.

  5. Petitioner Satpal, after having cleared the objective paper was called for interview on 21.04.2009 and, thereafter final result was declared wherein, in all, names of 56 candidates were included from Rajasthan but the name of the petitioner-Satpal was not included. Similarly, in the second writ petition (No.6614/2009), the petitioner Phusa Ram Beniwal was called for interview after clearing the objective paper, but his name was also not included in the select list. Both of them are from OBC Category.

  6. The petitioners have asserted that the respondents have selected only 7 candidates in the entire country in the Ex-servicemen quota, which was to be 10% of the total number of posts. The assertion is on the basis of provision contained in Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services & Posts) Rules, 1979 (herein after referred as 'the Rules of 1979').

  7. The petitioners, therefore, filed the present writ petitions assailing that the action of the respondents in not including a single Ex-servicemen in total 143 posts, vacancies notified for Rajasthan, alleging that the action was not only contrary to the advertisement issued, but also in violation of the Rules of 1979. It is submitted that as the petitioners have passed the objective papers and have also appeared for interview, their aggregate marks were required to be taken into consideration for providing reservation to Ex-servicemen in the OBC Category, to which, both of them belonged. It has been stated that as many as 57 candidates from OBC Category had been given appointments, as both the petitioners were from Ex-Servicemen OBC Category, both ought to have been pulled up against the total number of 57 posts and should have been considered for appointment by placing them in the select list against the Ex-servicemen quota, which has to be filled horizontally.

  8. The writ petitions were admitted and ad-interim order was passed by keeping one post reserved for the petitioners. It may be relevant to mention herein that in the advertisement, there were 31 posts reserved for the candidates belonging to the OBC Category.

  9. A reply to the writ petition has been filed and it has been stated that in the OBC Category, the last candidate, which was selected, secured 146 marks. Petitioner Satpal secured 112 marks, while petitioner Phusa Ram secured 96 marks. Thus, both secured marks below the cut-off line and could not be selected. It is asserted that that candidates with much higher rank in the vertical category cannot be sacrificed for the candidate who is falling in the horizontal category as it effects the efficiency in employment as envisaged under...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL