[2023:RJ-JD:25020] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1472/2014 Bajrang Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Nan Singh Shekhawat, aged about 24 years, R/o V.P.O. Sandewa, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Mines and Geology Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Khanij Bhawan, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Aniket Tater For Respondent(s) : Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 07/08/2023
1. The petitioner herein has challenged the order dated 27.01.2014, passed by the respondent No.2 - Director, Department of Mines and Geology, Udaipur, whereby his appointment has been cancelled.
2. Facts germane for the present purposes are that the petitioner was appointed as Foreman in the Mining Department, vide order dated 16.12.2013. Hardly had the petitioner begun to serve the respondents, an order dated 27.01.2014 came as a bolt from the blue and his selection was cancelled.
3. It is relevant to mention that above order of cancellation of petitioner's appointment came to be passed on a complaint/representation made by one Ajeet Singh Rathore, who (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:59:11 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:25020] (2 of 6) [CW-1472/2014] pointed out that he had secured marks equal to the marks secured by the present petitioner, but his date of birth is 13.06.1987, whereas the petitioner's date of birth is 01.11.1989. It was thus claimed that he should have been given preference in the appointment.
4. By way of interim order dated 24.02.2014, impugned order dated 27.01.2014 was stayed and consequently the petitioner resumed his duties, whereafter he has been continuing with the respondent-Department.
5. Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the order impugned dated 27.01.2014 is ex-facie illegal and contrary to the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, no notice was issued to the petitioner.
6. It was also submitted that the petitioner was offered appointment without there being any suppression of facts or mis- representation on his part and, therefore, his selection/appointment could not have been cancelled by the respondent-Department.
7. Mr. Bhandari alternatively flagged that many posts of Foreman remained unfilled or became vacant immediately and the same are still lying vacant in the respondent Department and submitted that no fruitful purpose will be served by throwing the petitioner out of the job, particularly when he has been serving the respondents satisfactorily for the last 9 years.
8. Mr. Digvijay Singh Jasol, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that as the facts were clear, observance of principles of natural justice would have made (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:59:11 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:25020] (3 of 6) [CW-1472/2014] no difference and, therefore, the order be not interfered on such technical ground.
9. While highlighting that once, the appointment to the last candidate (the petitioner) was granted, the recruitment came to an end and the waiting list had lapsed, he argued that the petitioner cannot be accommodated against the purported vacancies, which have arisen on account of non-joining/ resignation of some of the selected candidates etc.
10. He nevertheless, on instructions, submitted that 43 posts of Foreman are lying vacant, immediately after the recruitment of 2013 was undertaken.
11. On Court's query, Mr. Jasol, learned counsel for the respondent - Mining Department informed that after 2013, no other recruitment on the post of Foreman has taken place in the Mining Department.
12. Heard learned counsel appearing for the rival parties, perused the material available on record and gave my consideration over the matter.
13. So far as the petitioner's contention of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice is concerned, true it is that ideally, before cancelling petitioner's appointment, an opportunity of hearing ought to have been given. But in the case in hands, when the factum of petitioner's date of birth (01.11.1989), vis a vis that of the other candidate namely Ajeet Singh Rathore, was within the respondent's knowledge and more so when such fact so also the fact that both had secured equal marks was not in dispute, issuance of notice would have been an empty formality or an exercise in futility.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:59:11 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:25020] (4 of 6) [CW-1472/2014]
14. The petitioner has neither disputed these vital facts nor has he demonstrated any prejudice caused to him due to non- observance of the principles of natural justice. Hence, this Court does not propose to set aside the order impugned and remand the matter on this count, as it would lead to another chain of litigation. A gainful reference of the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Viveka Nand Sethi Vs. Chairman J & K Bank Ltd., reported in (2005) 5 SCC 337 can be made in this regard.
"The principle of natural justice, it is trite, is no unruly horse. When facts are admitted, an enquiry would be an empty formality. Even the principle of estoppel will apply. [See Dr. Gurjeewan Garewal (Mrs.) vs. Dr. Dumitra Dash (Mrs.) and Others [(2004) 5 SCC 263]. The principles of natural justice are required to be complied with having regard to the fact situation obtaining therein. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It cannot be applied in a vacuum without reference to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case."
15. Adverting to the alternative submission made by Mr. Manoj Bhandari, learned Senior counsel that many of the employees, who were selected on the post of Foreman have left the job and many posts are still lying vacant, this Court is of the view that the matter deserves to be dealt on equitable considerations. Sending the petitioner back home at this stage would be unjust. Because, had Ajit Singh Rathore been preferred above the petitioner and offered appointment in the very beginning, then the petitioner (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:59:11 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:25020] (5 of 6) [CW-1472/2014] would have remained the first person in waiting list/reserve list and subsequently, on seats falling vacant, he could have claimed appointment.
16. In the facts peculiar to present case, the argument as advanced by learned counsel for the respondent - State that after a period of six months the petitioner cannot be accommodated, cannot be accepted. Because, when the petitioner's appointment was cancelled by way of the order impugned, waiting/reserve list was still alive and but for the interim order granted in petitioner's favour on 24.02.2014, the petitioner being the first candidate in waiting/reserve list of the General category would have claimed appointment.
17. The State's stand may be technically correct, but having regard to the fact that appointment was offered to the petitioner due to inadvertence or error without any misrepresentation on his part; he has continued for about 9 years under the strength of the interim order of this Court; his qualification and eligibility is not in question; more over he has not taken away anybody's rights; 43 posts are still lying vacant and also because no recruitment on the post of Fireman has taken place since 2013, this Court is persuaded to save the appointment given to the petitioner on the principles of justice and good conscience.
18. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.01.2014 to the extent of cancelling petitioner's appointment is hereby quashed.
19. Petitioner shall be treated to have been appointed in accordance with law. His seniority will be reckoned from (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:59:11 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:25020] (6 of 6) [CW-1472/2014] 23.12.2013 or the date when Ajeet Singh Rathore had joined the services so that the petitioner remains junior to him.
20. The petitioner shall be given regular pay scale on completion of 2 years' satisfactory service from the date of appointment and he shall be entitled to regular increments etc. in accordance with law. Formal order in terms of the order instant be passed and arrears be paid within four months from today.
21. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 272-Ramesh/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 03:59:11 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)