Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 10 August, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7336/2017
Dharmendra Singh S/o Shri Ganpat Singh, R/o 832/e Mandir
Wali Gali, Lokhan Road, Police Line, Ajmer
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Director General Of
Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Police Range, Udaipur.
3. The District Police Superintendent, Udaipur.
4. Dharmaraj Choudhary S/o Shri Sivji Ram Choudhary,
aged about 25 years, Village Bagri, Post Lamb Hari Singh,
Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk.
----Respondents
Connected with
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7337/2017
Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh, R/o Village Post
Sukhwasi, Tehsil And District Nagaur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Director General Of
Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, Police Range, Udaipur.
3. The District Police Superintendant, Udaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinay Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa
Mr. Anant Kumar, Additional S. P.,
Police Headquarter, Udaipur.
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
10/08/2021
1. The petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions
challenging the order dated 12.06.2017 (Annex.4), whereby they
have been ousted from the select list, pursuant to the selection of
(2 of 4) [CW-7336/2017]
Mehra Ram and Dharamraj (petitioners in SB Civil Writ Petition
No.5850/2020), which was done consequent to revision of result
and publication of revised merit list dated 02.05.2013.
2. Mr. Vinay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued
that petitioners herein were given appointment vide order dated
11.07.2016 (Annex.3), whereafter on account of review/revision
of result they have been thrown out of the employment for no
fault of theirs.
3. It was argued by Mr. Jain that the petitioners had neither
concealed any fact nor misled the respondents and if there was
any error or fault, the same was attributable to the respondents,
hence, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to continue
in the service.
4. It was also pointed out by Mr. Jain that this Court had
protected the petitioners' right by way of interim order dated
22.06.2017 passed in the instant writ petition and they have been
continuing with the respondents for more than five years.
5. Apprehending that on account of acceptance of writ petition
filed by Mehra Ram, one of two petitioners has to go out he
prayed that rights and service of the petitioners, who have served
the respondents for more than five years, be protected.
6. He alternatively prayed that the respondents be directed to
accommodate the petitioners, if any vacant position exists.
7. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Jain relied upon
the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas
Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhasttisgarh & Ors. reported in
(2013) 14 SCC 494 and the judgment dated 24.04.2018 passed
by this Court in the case of Laxman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
Raajsthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.11751/2017) to submit
(3 of 4) [CW-7336/2017]
that it would be inequitable to terminate a candidate, who has
served the respondents for more than five years.
8. Mr. Anil Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents,
submitted that by order of even date this Court had allowed Writ
Petition No.5850/2020 qua petitioner No.1 - Mehra Ram and if he
is to be given appointment, one of the petitioners, whosoever is
lower in merit will have to go out.
9. Mr. Bissa submitted that though the respondents have
terminated the petitioners' services on 12.06.2017 but they are
continuing pursuant to interim order passed by this Court. Now,
since Mehra Ram's writ petition has been allowed, services of one
of the petitioners, who is lower in merit, will have to be terminated
and order dated 12.06.2017 is legal and valid.
10. Indisputably, vide order dated 12.06.2017 petitioners were
terminated by respondents on account of inclusion of Mehra Ram
and Dharma Raj.
11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and
considering the fact that the petitioners herein have served the
respondents for more than five years (may be because of the
interim order passed in their favour), this Court is of the view that
by this time the petitioners have become over-age and are not in
position to seek appointment and have lost practicality all
available avenues.
12. In the opinion of this Court, no sweeping order or direction
can be issued protecting service of the petitioners. Judgment in
the case of Vikas Pratap (supra) has been passed by Hon'ble the
Apex Court in order to do substantial justice, in exercise of plenary
power vested in it by virtue of Article 142 of the Constitution of
(4 of 4) [CW-7336/2017]
India. Such powers are not available to this Court while exercising
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
13. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of with direction
to the respondents not to disturb the candidate, who is higher in
merit out of petitioners (Dharmendra Singh and Mahendra Singh),
he be retained qua the vacancy arising due to rejection of
candidature of Mr. Dharmraj Choudhary, obviously taking into
account the reservation and other eligibility criteria.
14. So far as the second candidate, who is lower in merit, is
concerned, he be accommodated by the respondents, if a vacant
position exists in his category.
15. Needful be done within a period eight weeks.
16. Stay applications are also disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
49-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
