In a recent judgment, the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur, presided over by Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, addressed a contentious issue involving the appointment of a Lab Technician. The petitioner, Bhagwan Puri Goswami, sought a writ directing his appointment on the grounds that he had been unjustly excluded from a selection process despite securing higher marks than the cutoff in his category.
Background of the Case
The case, titled Bhagwan Puri Goswami v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10537/2024), revolves around the selection process for the post of Lab Technician, advertised by the State of Rajasthan on May 31, 2023. The petitioner, Bhagwan Puri Goswami, a 26-year-old Lab Technician from Pali, Rajasthan, applied for the post under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category.
Goswami had initially applied in response to an earlier advertisement dated December 15, 2022. However, that selection process was canceled, and a fresh advertisement was issued in May 2023, allowing candidates to adjust their fees from the previous process but requiring them to submit new applications. Goswami duly complied, submitting his application with the requisite documents, including an experience certificate for his service as a Lab Technician from October 12, 2021, to February 13, 2022.
Legal Issues Involved
The petitioner’s primary contention was that despite scoring 56.248 marks, which exceeded the cutoff of 52.526% for the OBC category, he was denied appointment. The authorities argued that the petitioner had not submitted an experience certificate in the precise format stipulated in the May 31, 2023 advertisement. Goswami’s counsel, Mr. Yash Pal Khileree, pointed out that another candidate, Phool Singh, who had submitted a similar experience certificate, was granted an appointment, leading to claims of discrimination and unfair treatment.
On the other side, counsel for the respondents, Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit, Additional Advocate General, assisted by Ms. Anita Rajpurohit, argued that the petitioner’s experience certificate did not conform to the requirements of the advertisement. However, they conceded that the petitioner’s certificate contained all the necessary details.
Court’s Observations and Decision
In a significant ruling, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur emphasized that the denial of appointment to the petitioner on purely procedural grounds was unjust, especially when a similarly situated candidate had been accommodated. The court highlighted that the refusal to appoint the petitioner based on a minor deviation in the format of the experience certificate amounted to “hostile discrimination.”
The court further observed:
“When substantial and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice.”
Justice Mathur underscored the importance of a “humane approach” in the application of rules, stating that the judiciary is respected not for “legalizing injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice.”
Direction of the Court
In view of these considerations, the court allowed the writ petition filed by Bhagwan Puri Goswami. It directed the respondents to appoint him as a Lab Technician, provided he met all other eligibility criteria. The court mandated that the state authorities comply with this direction within six weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.
Lawyers Involved:
– For Petitioner: Mr. Yash Pal Khileree
– For Respondents: Mr. N.S. Rajpurohit (AAG) assisted by Ms. Anita Rajpurohit
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10537/2024
