- (1.) ISSUE notice to the respondents. Under the instructions of the court, Mr. Hemant Choudhary, learned Standing Counsel for Panchayati Raj Department accepts notice. Having considered narrow amplitude of the issue involved in this petition for writ, the same is heard finally at this stage with the consent of learned counsels.
(2.) THE factual matrix necessary to be noticed is that the petitioner faced the process of selection conducted by the respondents for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) by appearing in IIIrd Grade Teacher Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination, 2012. Though coming from "Other Backward Class" the petitioner mentioned his category as "General". On declaration of result, the petitioner stood at merit No.1 being having 126.96 total marks in the subject of Science- Maths. An affidavit subsequently was given by the petitioner to consider his candidature under the category of "Other Backward Class". The respondents neither considered candidature of the petitioner in the category of "Other Backward Class" nor provided appointment to him by placing with general candidates. The grievance sought to be espoused is that on availing the age relaxation as prescribed in para No.10 of the advertisement, the petitioner possessed requisite eligibility even to be considered under "General" category, therefore, the respondents should have considered candidature of the petitioner and should have given appointment to him on the post concerned. It is also submitted that even if the petitioner committed some error by not referring his category as "OBC" then too necessary correction should have been made as that was pointed out by the petitioner prior to appearing in the examination. On examination of the facts averred in the petition for writ and also what reveals from the documents annexed with the writ petition is that the petitioner possess requisite qualification to be considered for appointment as Special Teacher (Hearing Impairment) and by availing age relaxation as per para No.10 of the advertisement, he acquired other eligibility too for appointment as Special Teacher (Hearing Impairment). The respondents were required to consider candidature of the petitioner under the "General" category if he did not mention his category as "Other Backward Class". He would have been selected and employed on the post concerned being at Sr. No.1 in the list of selected incumbents as per merit, as such, no reason was available to deny appointment to the petitioner merely on the count that he has not mentioned his category as "Other Backward Class" in the application form. The other aspect of the matter is that the petitioner due to some inadvertence if mentioned his category as "General" though he belongs to "Other Backward Class", then on pointing out the error the respondents should have permitted him to make necessary correction in view of consideration of the issue in SBCWP No.9170/2012 (Datar Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.) decided on 11.9.2012. For the reasons given above, this petition for writ deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the petitioner for the purpose of appointment to the post of Teacher Gr.III (Level-II) in accordance with law and as per the petitioner's merit. If he stands in general merit then appointment be given to him against the non-reserved vacancies and if he do not find place in general merit, then his candidature is required to be considered against the vacancies reserved for Other Backward Class. No costs.;