MADAN, J. - (1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter has been heard finally at admission stage itself. The case of the petitioner in short is that pursuant to the advertisement issued in Rajasthan Patrika by the Director Sanskrit Education, Govt. of Rajasthan as per which 250 posts of General Teachers were advertised by the State Govt. for filling up the vacancies for the post of Teachers in the aforesaid department, petitioner applied for the post in the quota of physical handicapped candidates. As per the Rajasthan Employment of Physical Handicapped Rules, 1976 for short the `rules' there is reservation and relaxation for the physical handicapped persons. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Rules stipulates, as under :- " 4. Reservation and relaxation of physical and Medical Standards for physically Handicapped persons :- (1) (i) For appointment to posts in Subordinate Ministerial and Class-IV Services, 3% of the posts (1% for the Blind 1% for the Deaf and/or Mute and 1% for the Orthopedically handicapped persons) shall be reserved. In order to implement these reservation orders, the jobs which can be performed by various categories of physically handicapped persons without loss of productivity, shall be identified by the Administrative Department concerned : Provided that where a Head of the Department is of the opinion that functions of certain job of the posts of the said services cannot be carried out by the physically handicapped persons indicated in clause (v) of rule 2 of these rules, in that case the Head of the Department concerned shall indicate such posts to the Director, Social Welfare, Rajasthan for allowing exemption from the operation of the reservation prescribed in sub-rule (1) above for physically handicapped persons. (ii) The vacancies reserved under sub-rule (1) above, after 1. 4. 1981 shall be calculated on the basis of vacancies determined yearwise to be filled in by direct recruitment to the posts concerned. (4) The information pertaining to the position of reservation and employment of the physically handicapped persons as on 31st March of each year shall be reported to the Department of Personnel (A-5) in Form - I, appended to these rules. (5) In the event of non-availability of candidates belonging to the particular category of physically handicapped persons or if the nature of vacancies in an office is such that a given category of physically handicapped persons cannot be employed, inter-se exchange of posts/vacancies shall be permissible. (6) In the event of non-availability of suitable candidates for appointment against the vacancies reserved for physically handicapped persons under sub-rule (1) above, in a particular year, the vacancies so reserved for them shall be filled in accordance with the normal procedure and an equivalent number of additional vacancies shall be reserved for them in the subsequent year. Such of the vacancies which remain so unfilled shall be carried forward upto three recruitment years in total and there after such reservation would lapse.
(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he was competent to discharge duties of Teacher in the general category if he was given appointment as he fulfilled the eligibility criteria as per Rule 7 of the Rules for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr. III in reserved category. This fact has been vehemently controverted by the respondents. During the course of hearing it was contended by Shri Akhil Simlote that so far as the reservation for handicapped persons is concerned, it is not disputed but the learned counsel contended that there is also a provision in the Rules of 1976 to the effect that if the handicapped person who has applied for a particular post is not found suitable the post can be filed up from other categories of other than handicapped persons as well. Another material aspect of the case which requires consideration is that even if the petitioner is recommended for being given appointment, it is not possible to give such directions to the respondents for appointing the petitioner for the simple reason that the validity of advertisement which was issued by the respondent, already stood lapsed w. e. f. 31. 3. 1999 which fact is borne out from perusal of Annexure-2. Neither the time was extended nor any fresh advertisement has been issued thereafter. Be that as it may, according to the rules the law is well settled that the mere empannelment of the petitioner does not give him vested or indefeasible right to be appointed on the post of Teacher Gr. III. At the best, it can be considered as a condition of eligibility for the purpose of appointment, observations are fortified from the judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India vs. N. R. Banerjee (1), in which the apex Court in para 12 of its judgment held, as under :- " In Union Territory of Chandigarh vs. Dilbagh Singh it was held that the mere fact that a candidate's name finds a place in the select list as a selected candidate for appointment to a post, does not confer on him/her an indefeasible right to be appointed in such post in the absence of any specific rule entitled him to such appointment. In State of Bihar vs. Secretariat Asstt. Successful Examination Union 1986 it was held that a person who is selected and empannelled does not on account of empannelment alone acquire any indefeasible right to appointment. Empannelment is, at the best, a condition of eligibility for the purposes of appointment and that by itself does not amount to selection or creation of a vested right to appointment unless relevant rules state to the contrary. " My observations are further fortified from another judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of Madan Lal vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir (2), wherein the Apex Court held that candidate who had taken calculated chance and appeared at oral interview and after having been declared unsuccessful, it is not open to him to either challenge either the selection process nor he can be heard to say that it was to his disadvantage a she had not been appointed or even to say that the interview test was unfair.
(3.) IT is not the petitioner's case that any waitlist of the candidates was prepared by the respondents. Hence, in my considered opinion, the writ petition being devoid of any merit fails and is consequently dismissed. .;