Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Amit Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors. … on 5 March, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:13171]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15333/2017
Amit Kumar S/o Shri Amar Singh, R/o Vpo Nagrana, Tehsil
Sangariya, District Hanumangarh Raj..
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services Group-Iii, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Mission Director Nhm, Directorate Of Medical Health
And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, C-
Scheme, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.
3. The Project Director Nhm, Directorate Of Medical Health
And Family Welfare Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Firoda
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Sharma for
Mr. Mukesh Dave - Dy. GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA
Order (Oral)
05/03/2025
1. Petitioner herein, inter alia, seeks quashing of impugned
selection list dated 16.11.2017 (Annexure-10) to the extent of not
including his name and further seeks issuance of an appropriate
writ, order and/or direction commanding the respondents to
consider his candidature for appointment on the post of PHC Asha
Supervisor pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.06.2016.
2. Briefly speaking, the facts pleaded in the petition are that
pursuant to the advertisement dated 13.04.2016 issued by the
Project Director (NHM), the petitioner, being eligible, applied for
the post of PHC Asha Supervisor. The petitioner participated in the
written examination held on 16.10.2016. Thereafter, the result of
all the candidates was declared and scored 51 marks.
Subsequently, the respondent No.3 issued a provisional list of
selected candidates category-wise on 23.08.2017 and sought
(Downloaded on 04/04/2025 at 10:38:36 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:13171] (2 of 2) [CW-15333/2017]
objections from the candidates on or before 01.09.2017. In the
said provisional list candidates with lower merit than the petitioner
were included.
2.1. The petitioner claiming himself to be the OBC candidate
submitted his objection by filing an application before Respondent
No. 2 on 28.08.2017, but to no avail. Hence, this petition.
3. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the case file.
4. Neither in the writ petition nor even otherwise in the course
of hearing any document has been appended to reflect as to how
the petitioner is claiming himself to be a OBC candidate. Not only
that, the said OBC certificate had to be appended with the
application form and, in the worst case, at the time of document
verification. In absence of any OBC certificate of the petitioner,
the respondents seem to have treated him as general candidate
and viewed from that angle he has since secured lesser marks
than the last selected candidate in the general category, no
indulgence is warranted.
5. Dismissed accordingly.
6. Pending application, if any, stand disposed of.
(ARUN MONGA),J
57-AK Chouhan/-
(Downloaded on 04/04/2025 at 10:38:36 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
[ad_1]
Source link