MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Deepu Sanwaria, who is aggrieved by his non-selection on the post of Lower Division Clerk against the quota meant for differently abled persons. The petitioner assailed the select list dated 25.06.2014 issued pursuant to advertisement dated 10.03.2014. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, submitted that the District and Sessions Judge, Bharatpur, by aforesaid advertisement invited applications for recruitment to the posts of Lower Division Clerk in Bharatpur Judgeship under the Rajasthan Subordinate Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. 27 posts were advertised for District Judgeship Bharatpur and 13 posts were advertised for District Legal Services Authority and thus 40 posts were advertised in total. Out of 27 posts, 5 posts were earmarked for Scheduled Tribe and 8 posts for Scheduled Casts, whereas 7 posts were required to be filled in from Other Backward Classes and 7 posts were for general category. Out of 13 posts advertised for District Legal Services Authority, 3 posts were earmarked for OBC, 1 post each for SC and ST category and rest 8 posts were to be filled from general category. The advertisement stated that women, physically disabled (differently abled) and sports-persons would be entitled for reservation as per the Rules. The advertisement further stated that 24 vacancies are anticipated in addition 40 vacancies and hence advertisement was for 64 vacancies, i.e., 40 clear vacancies and 24 anticipated vacancies. Column 15 of the advertisement stated that the candidates are required to submit true copies of certificates.
(2.) It is submitted that the petitioner being Scheduled Caste candidate and also physically disabled, submitted both the certificate along-with the application form and applied in both the categories. He appeared in the written test and secured 134.31 marks in total, whereas the last candidate selected in Scheduled Caste category secured 142.17 marks in total. The petitioner was shocked to learn that the respondents have not considered his candidature for appointment in the quota meant for differently abled candidates. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner, further submitted that the respondents have not appointed a single candidate against two posts reserved for differently abled candidates and therefore they have violated the mandate of the Persons with Disability (equal opportunity, protection of rights and full participation) Act, 1995. The petitioner filed an application under Right to Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 but his application was rejected vide order dated 22.08.2015 on the ground that he has not filed it on the proforma mentioned under the Right to Information (High Court and Subordinate Courts) Rules, 2006 and Rule 10(2) has not been followed. He then preferred an appeal before the appellate authority on 08.09.2015 and the same was rejected vide order dated 23.09.2015. Vide order dated 8.09.2015, 19 candidates were appointed on the post of LDC in compliance of order dated 14.08.2015 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9918/2014 - Dinesh Kumar Agarwal and Others Vcs. District Judge, Bharatpur. Pursaunt to the direction contained in the order dated 14.08.2015, 24 appointments were to be offered in Bharatpur judgeship against 24 anticipated vacancies. However, instead of 24 posts, only 19 candidates were appointed. The respondents have not provided 3% reservation meant for differently abled candidates in terms of the Act of 1995.
(3.) Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents, opposed the writ petition and submitted that as per Column 15 of the advertisement, the candidates were required to annex photostat copies of the documents on which they relied on. Column 15 puts a question to a candidate whether he belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe/Other Backward Class/Special Backward Class/Person with disability and if so, give particulars with a certificate from a Magistrate in support of the claim. The petitioner in response thereto, mentioned 'YES' but did not specify as to in which category he applied for, whether it was Scheduled Caste or Person with disability. The petitioner along-with the application form claimed to have annexed 14 documents in which at serial no.11 he stated to have annexed the certificate pertaining to caste and at serial no.13 he stated to have annexed the certificate pertaining to disability. Though the petitioner produced a certificate pertaining to his caste but the disability certificate which was stated to be annexed at serial no.13 was in fact not found annexed with the application form. At the time of scrutiny, it was found by the concerning clerk that the relevant certificate of disability was not enclosed with the application form. Since the petitioner was considered as a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste category, the cut off marks of which category were 142.17, he having obtained 134.31 marks was considered not eligible for appointment.;