AMITAVA ROY, J. - (1.) HEARD Mr. Arjun Purohit, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.R. Punia, Additional Advocate General alongwith Mr. Jamwant Gurjar, learned counsel for the respondent-State.
(2.) THE facts in brief leading to filing of the instant petition in short is that on 27.2.2012 an advertisement was issued by the Zila Parishad, Udaipur soliciting candidature for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr.III by direct recruitment. Apart from setting out the conditions of eligibility for participation in the process initiated thereby, it was clearly mentioned in Note (II) under Clause (6) thereof that the post reserved in terms of the notification dated 12.9.2007 (the vires whereby is under challenge in the instant petition) would be filled up by the local candidates in the TSP area. The petitioner admittedly applied for the post in question sought to be filled up participated in the process that followed and according to him though he had secured 91.42% marks, his name was not included in the select list for the purpose of recruitment. In course of his endeavours to ascertain the reason for his non-selection, he came to be apprised by the official respondents that he had not been considered as TSP candidate as he belongs to Dungarpur district and the post advertised is located in Udaipur district. The authorities justified the action by referring to the notification dated 12.9.2007 and also advertisement dated 27.2.2012 mentioning about the same. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court. The vires of the notification dated 12.9.2007 being assailed the matter is before this Division Bench.
(3.) MR . Arjun Purohit argued that as the petitioner was duly entitled to the benefit of the notification dated 12.9.2007 as a TSP candidate, the ground for denial for the said benefit to him as cited by the respondents is wholly unjustified. In the alternative, he has questioned the validity of the notification dated 12.9.2007. According to him the limitation of the benefit in terms of the notification to the local candidates as envisaged therein amounts to hostile discrimination. Mr. Punia has argued in response that as the petitioner had participated in the process initiated by the advertisement dated 27.2.2012 which clearly mentioned that the reservation of posts as referred to in the notification dated 12.9.2007 would be filled up in accordance therewith, at this belated stage, the present writ petition is without any substance.;