Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rahul Panchal vs The State Of Rajasthan on 20 December, 2021

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6138/2020

1. Surjit Singh Rathod S/o Shri Surya Singh Rathod, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Ratadiya Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

2. Megraj Singh Rathore S/o Shri Jitendra Singh Rathore, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village And Post Ratadiya Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

4. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4673/2020

1. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Sh. Venilal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village And Post Mor Tehsil- Garhi, District - Banswara.

2. Mukesh Kumar Patidar S/o Sh. Jagji Patidar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Nosama, Tehsil - Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

3. Chandra Shekhar Rawal S/o Sh. Fakir Nath Rawal, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village And Post Ghodi Tejpur, Tehsil - Choti Saran, District Banswara.

4. Mahendra Singh Chouhan S/o Sh. Jitendra Singh Chouhan, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Kotda Boda Post - Thikariya Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara.

5. Prashant Kumar Rebari S/o Sh. Laxman Lal Rebari, Aged

(2 of 27)

About 27 Years, R/o Village Madrup Ki Dhani Post Bedva Pratapur Tehsil - Garhi, District Banswara.

6. Hemant Kumar Upadhyay S/o Sh. Lalitashankar Upadhyay, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Village And Post Moti Bassi Tehsil - Arthuna District Banswara.

7. Kapil Pandya S/o Sh. Mahesh Pandya, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village And Post - Moti Bassi Tehsil - Arthuna District Banswara.

8. Ganpat Lal Pandya S/o Sh. Narayan Lal Pandya, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village And Post Chidiyavasa Tehsil - Banswara, District Banswara.

9. Gajendra Kumar Sarwar S/o Sh. Gautam Lal Sarwar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post - Sheshpur Tehsil Salumber District Udaipur.

10. Venichand Bata S/o Sh. Shankar Lal Bata, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village And Post Sheshpur Tehsil Salumber District Udaipur.

11. Maya Patidar D/o Sh. Dhulji Patidar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Kummanpur Post Semliyaghata Tehsil Galiyakot District Dungarpur.

12. Mohanlal Rebari S/o Sh. Narayan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Umbada Tehsil Garhi District Banswara.

13. Kanuram Patel S/o Sh. Govind Patel, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post Dagar Tehsil Salumber District Udaipur.

14. Vikram Singh Chouhan S/o Sh. Dalpat Singh Chouhan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Kadja Tehsil Sabla District Dungarpur.

15. Puja Upadhyay D/o Sh. Keshavlal Upadhyay, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Motibassi, Tehsil Arpuna District Banswara.

16. Mukesh Patidar S/o Sh. Dayalal Patidar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village And Post Divda Bada Via Bhiluda Tehsil Sagwada District Dungarpur.

17. Mahendra Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Parvat Singh Rathore, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Salavata (Jaitana) Tehsil Salumber District Udaipur.

----Petitioners

(3 of 27)

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Through Its Secretary Ajmer (Raj.).

3. The Director Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6486/2020

1. Rahul Panchal S/o Sh. Raman Lal Panchal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Kunwa Tehsil Chikhali, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

2. Shailesh Suthar S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Suthar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Bori, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.).

3. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8178/2020 Girish Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Dwarka Prasad Joshi, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village And Post Panchwara, Tehsil Gharhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.).

3. The Director, Department Of Sanskrit Education,

(4 of 27)

Rajasthan, Jaipur, Secondary Floor, Block No. 6, Shiksha Sankul Jln Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8787/2020

Ishwar Trivedi S/o Sh. Rameshwar Trivedi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Mohalla Chaki Chowk, Paloda, Tehsil Gharhi, District Banswara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.).

3. The Director Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11736/2021

1. Kalpesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Nagar Dharmshala Ke Piche, Prathavi Ganj, Teliwada, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

2. Jitesh Kumar Shrimali S/o Shri Manohar Lal Shrimali, Aged About 39 Years, R/o V.p. Diwada-Bada, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

3. Harish Chandra Yadav S/o Shri Poonjiya Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V.p. Akhepanjika Gara, Tehsil- Gari, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

4. Manohar Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Karan Singh Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V.p. Kakaji Ka Gara, Mota Danda Ganora, District Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

5. Bhupesh Yadav S/o Shri Kodar Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Barodiya, Metwala, Tehsil- Garhi, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

6. Ambicharan Singh S/o Shri Yagyapal Singh, Aged About

(5 of 27)

31 Years, R/o V.p. Osara, Tambesara, Sajjangarh, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

7. Mansingh Damor S/o Shri Bapulal Damor, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Bawdi, Chikhali, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

8. Vijay Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, Aged About 38 Years, R/o V.p. Gamda Bramniya, Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

9. Surya Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Lal Singh Chundawat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o V.p. Padar Mota Danda, Ganoda, District Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

10. Suraj Damor S/o Shri Dhulji Damor, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Laxmanpura Po Hadmala, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

11. Sanjay Kumar Pitambar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Pitambar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gamothwara, Tehsil Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

12. Katrik Soni S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Soni, Aged About 24 Years, R/o V.p. Ganoda, Tehsil- Ganoda, District Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

13. Naman Kumar Pandya S/o Shri Anil Kumar Pandya, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bhattmewada Mohalla, Khadagada, Tehsil Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajashan. Subject - Sanskrit

14. Ronak Dixit S/o Shri Madhukar Dixit, Aged About 31 Years, R/o V.p. Khadagada, Tehsil-Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajashan. Subject - Sanskrit

15. Vinod Kumar Choubisa S/o Shri Ram Shanker, Aged About 40 Years, R/o V.p. Pavara, Tehsil- Salumber, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

16. Hansa Meena D/o Shri Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Makadjapa, Po- Gadawat, Tehsil Rishabhdeo, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

17. Amul Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Durga Shanker Joshi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Wanderved, Tehsil-Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajashan. Subject - Sanskrit

18. Nilesh Bunker S/o Shri Ramlal Bunker, Aged About 29

(6 of 27)

Years, R/o V.p. Jethana, Tehsil-Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajashan. Subject - Sanskrit

19. Manoj Kumar Dave S/o Shri Jayanti Lal Dave, Aged About 37 Years, R/o V.p. Chhinch, Tehsil- Bagidora, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

20. Chanchal Shrimali D/o Ramesh Chandra Shrimali, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Brahman Mohalla, Ambada, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

21. Praveen Singh Rathod S/o Laxman Singh Rathod, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Khumanpur, Post- Semaliya Ghada, Tehsil- Galiyakot, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

22. Pyare Lal Roat S/o Shri Devi Lal Roat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Fawta, Obri, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

23. Girish Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Joshi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Panchvada, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

24. Mitesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Dhulji Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Ganoda, Tehsil- Ganoda, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Sanskrit

25. Pankaj Kalasua S/o Shri Mohan Lal Kalasua, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Saslai, Post Rathdi, Tehsil- Chikhali, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

26. Harshad Kumar Damor S/o Bhaychand Damor, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 8/18 Rhb Colony Shivaji Nagar, Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject-Science

27. Shahrukh Mohammad S/o Abdul Kadar Mansuri, Aged About 22 Years, R/o V.p. Nougama, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Maths

28. Priyesh Parmar S/o Shri Satyadev Parmar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 110, Yadav Mohalla Waya Chikali, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Maths

29. Vinayak Kumar Panchal S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Nayagaon, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Maths

30. Jaymal Kumar Damor S/o Shri Bhaychand Damor, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 8/18 Rhb Colony, Shivji Nagar,

(7 of 27)

District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

31. Mukesh Kumar Darji S/o Shri Lalu Ji Darji, Aged About 30 Years, R/o V.p. Mallada, Tehsil- Semari, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

32. Ashvin Pancholi S/o Shri Hemraj Pancholi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Barodiya, Post- Metwala, Tehsil- Garhi, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

33. Rajendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Mohan Singh Rathore, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Mohlla Vada Talidot, Post Rayki Raiki, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

34. Gautam Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Kesar Singh Chouhan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V.p. Vaundar Chhoti, Tehsil Aspur, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

35. Rohit Kumar Patidar S/o Shri Raman Lal Patidar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Gaugama, Tehsil- Bagidora, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

36. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Babulala Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Larathi, Tehsil Kherwara, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

37. Kamlesh Patidar S/o Shri Valji Patidar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V.p. Silohi, Tehsil- Galiyakot, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

38. Nitin Patidar S/o Shri Ishwar Lal Patidar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ambada, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

39. Kanti Lal Gameti S/o Shri Haliya Gameti, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village- Baladeet, Post- Thana, Tehsil- Dungarpur, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

40. Basanti Katara S/o Shri Dhuri Lal Katara, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Navedera, Post- Surrur, Tehsil- Dungarpur, District-Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

41. Harish Lal Kalal S/o Shri Nathu Lal Kalal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o V.p. Depur, Tehsil- Rishabhdeo, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

42. Mithun Kumar Damor S/o Shri Jesha Damor, Aged About

(8 of 27)

29 Years, R/o Village- Mana Ka Dev, Post- Sarthuna, Tehsil- Simalwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject

- Social Science

43. Leela Manat D/o Shri Navneet Lal Manat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Khanda Mahuda, Post- Sabli, Tehsil- Bichhiwada, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Social Science

44. Archana Patidar D/o Shri Ravan Patidar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V.p. Daiyana, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

45. Kalu Singh Charan S/o Shri Mansingh Charan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Merop, Simalvada, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

46. Mukesh Chandra Poncholi S/o Prakash Chandra Poncholi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Barodiya, Tehsil- Gari, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

47. Lokesh Patidar S/o Shri Mogji Patidar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V.p. Bhasor, Tehsil- Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

48. Laxman Singh Maida S/o Shri Parta Maida, Aged About 40 Years, R/o V.p. Gopalpuri, Kalakhet, Chotisarvan, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

49. Navin Patidar S/o Shri Gajeng Patidar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Bori, Tehsil- Gari, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

50. Ram Singh S/o Shri Praveen Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Abu Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

51. Raj Kumar Kharadi S/o Shri Heeralal Kharadi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Khandi Obri, Khervada, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

52. Rohit Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Hemant Kumar Vyas, Aged About 31 Years, R/o V.p. Hadmala, Tehsil- Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

53. Hansa Kumari Lauvot D/o Shri Nandlal, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Barbodaniya, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

54. Nandlal Lohar S/o Shri Premit Lohar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V.p. Karkala, Kharka, Salumbar, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

(9 of 27)

55. Jagdish Chandra Patidar S/o Shri Pratap Patidar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o V.p. Bagidora, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

56. Mahendra Kumar Choubisa S/o Shri Kanhaiya Choubisa, Aged About 99 Years, R/o V.p. Rayaki Aspur, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

57. Bhupesh Singh Chawda S/o Shri Deva Chawada, Aged About 33 Years, R/o V.p. Chhinch, Tehsil- Bagidora, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

58. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Hirji, Aged About 30 Years, R/o V.p. Sagrod, Tehsil- Talwara, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

59. Kanhaiya Lal Damor S/o Shri Khatu Ram Damor, Aged About 35 Years, R/o V.p. Patinagra, Danakshri, Chhotisarvan, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

60. Suresh Chandra Padiyar S/o Shri Devi Singh Padiyar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Itauva, Barodiya, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

61. Lokesh Kumar Suthar S/o Shri Narayan Suthar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Bhekhared, Tehsil- Sabla, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

62. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Lakshmi Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Chandy Ka Vela, Post Bhoyar, Tehsil Ganoda, District Banswara, Rajasthan. Subject - Hindi

63. Dushtant Bhatt S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Bhatt, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gamra Bamanaiya, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Respondents




                               (10 of 27)




For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. P.R. Mehta.
                               Dr. Nupur Bhati.
                               Mr. V.S. Bhati.
                               Mr. Keshav Bhati.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. M.S.Singhvi, Advocate General
                               (through VC) assisted by
                               Mr. K.S. Lodha
                               Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG.
                               Mr. Khet Singh and Mr. Vikram Singh
                               for Mr. Tarun Joshi.
                               Ms. Abhilasha Bora, AGC.
                               Mr. Hemant Choudhary, G.C. with
                               Mr. Vishal Jangid, Dy.G.C.
                               Mr. Brajesh Purohit, Dy. G.C.
                               Ms. Shalini for Mr. Vinit Sanadhya.
                               Mr. Rakesh Arora & Mr. Hardik
                               Gautam.


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                                    Order

20/12/2021

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against the inclusion of candidates belonging to TSP

areas included by way of Notification dated 19/5/2018 for

recruitment to the post of Senior Teacher Gr.II and Lab Assistant

pursuant to Notifications dated 9/4/2018, 29/3/2018 and

9/5/2018.

The facts as indicated in CWP No. 4673 of 2020 : Kamlesh

Kumar and others are being taken, as parties have argued based

on the pleadings in the said writ petition.

The petitioners have inter alia claimed the following reliefs:

"I. The writ petition preferred by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with all consequential benefits. II. That the respondents may be directed to not to appoint the candidates of Non-TSP area against the post of TSP area who have been recently included in the TSP area by way of notification dt.19.05.2018.

III. That it may be held that the posts advertised for TSP area vide advertisement dt. 09.04.2018 (Annexure-I) were related to the vacancies which were available only for the

(11 of 27)

TSP area (Schedule area) which was notified in pursuance of notification dt.12.02.1981 (Annexure-12). IV. It is further prayed that the Non-TSP candidates who's names erroneously included in the merit list of the present TSP post may be ordered to be considered only against Non-TSP post as far as present selection for the post of senior teacher of various subjects is concerned. V. That in alternative if this Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that the candidates of newly added area are entitled to be considered for the vacancies of present recruitment of TSP area then the respondents may be directed to recalculate and redetermine the vacancies for TSP area by inclusion of additional posts of senior teacher on the basis of inclusion of new areas of various Tehsils and Panchayat Samitis for various Districts as per notification dated 19.05.2018.

VI. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned merit list dated 16.03.2020 (Annexure-6), 12.03.2020 (Annexure-7) and 27.02.2020 (Annexure-8) may kindly be ordered to be recast. The respondents may be directed to recast or redraw the merit list by considering the claim of the petitioners for considering them in their respective categories according to their marks and merit.

VII. That it may be directed to the respondents to exclude the candidates of Non-TSP area from the merit list of TSP area.

VIII. That if during the pendency of the writ petition any appointment is made dehors the provision of notifications and Rules, 2014 then the illegal appointment of candidates of Non-TSP area may be quashed and set aside.The equal number of posts may be ordered to be filled up from the candidates of TSP category.

IX. That the respondents may further be directed to recast and redraw the fresh merit list after applying the proper roster and accordingly if the petitioners find their place in the fresh merit list according to declaring a fresh cut off marks then they may be considered for appointment on the post concerned.

X. The petitioners may be considered for appointment on the post of senior teacher according to their merit. XI. Any other appropriate order or direction that may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners."

It is inter alia submitted in the writ petition that

advertisement dated 9/4/2018 was issued by the RPSC inviting

applications for the post of Senior Teacher Gr.II in various subjects

for TSP area under the provisions of Rajasthan Scheduled Areas

Subordinate, Ministerial and Class IV Service (Recruitment and

other Service Conditions) Rules 2014 ('the Rules, 2014'). Different

(12 of 27)

numbers of posts were advertised in different subjects. The

selections were to be made on the basis of written examination

with Paper - I of 200 marks & Paper - II of 300 marks and merit

was to be prepared on the basis of aggregate marks of both the

papers. Petitioners then indicated that after conducting the

examination, result was declared and candidates two times the

total number of vacant posts were called for document

verification. Result of Social Science was declared on 29/7/2019,

Hindi on 8/8/2019 and Sanskrit on 2/9/2019. After document

verification, final select/merit list for Social Science was issued on

16/3/2020, for Hindi on 12/2/2020 and for Sanskrit on 27/2/2020.

The petitioners could not make it to the cut off of the selected

candidates. It is submitted that the Scheduled Area was notified

by the State on 12/2/1981, which came to be modified by

Notification dated 19/5/2018, though the advertisement was

issued on 9/4/2018 i.e. prior to the Notification dated 19/5/2018

extending the Scheduled Area, the RPSC issued a corrigendum

dated 4/6/2018 extending the last date to fill up on-line

applications to 16/6/2018, thereby, providing opportunity to the

candidates residing in the newly included TSP areas.

Submissions have been made that the action of the RPSC in

issuing the corrigendum dated 4/6/2018 (Annex.16) was contrary

to the Circular dated 1/6/2018 (Annex.14) issued by the

Department of Personnel specifically stipulating that the provisions

of the Notification dated 19/5/2018 would apply to all the

advertisements issued after 19/5/2018.

(13 of 27)

Civil Writ Petition No. 6138/2020 pertains to the post of Lab

Assistant in relation to the advertisement dated 9/5/2018

(Annex.1). The said recruitment has been undertaken by the

Rajasthan Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board. In

the writ petition, the grievance raised is identical regarding the

alleged wrongful inclusion of candidates of TSP area, which has

been included in the TSP area pursuant to the Notification dated

19/5/2018 principally on the ground that the posts advertised for

the TSP area were as on 1/4/2018 when the newly added TSP

area was not included.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made vehement

submissions that in terms of the provisions of the Rules of 2014,

the vacancies are to be determined on first of April every year and

as such the advertisement which was issued on 9/4/2018, the

vacancies indicated therein were upto 1/4/2018 and, therefore,

the respondents, could not have included the candidates of the

newly added TSP areas qua the said vacancies, which pertain to

the TSP area as it existed on 1/4/2018.

It is also emphasized that both the concerned departments,

by filing reply have taken the stand that the Notification dated

19/5/2018 is not retrospective. Once such a stand has been

taken, the subsequent attempt on the part of the State to take a

diagonally opposite stand by claiming that the Notification would

apply to the pending recruitments as well, is not justified.

Submissions were made that the determination of vacancies

for Scheduled Area is made based on the Notification dated

4/7/2016 (Annex.15), which has provided a formula for

(14 of 27)

determination of vacancies and which has direct relation to the

population of the Scheduled Area in relation to the population of

the State and as such once the respondents have chosen to add

more areas for the purpose of recruitment to the TSP Area,

consequently the posts meant for TSP area must also be

increased. It was emphasized that either the candidates of the

areas included vide Notification dated 19/5/2018 be declared

ineligible / their selection be quashed and/or the respondents be

directed to increase the seats proportionally as per the increased

area.

Submissions were made that the State in the case of

Agriculture Supervisors has agreed for such increase.

Further reliance was placed on the judgments in Devendar

Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 7187/2009 decided on 10/4/2015, Rajasthan

Subordinate & Ministerial Service Selection Board and Anr. vs.

Yashwant Kumar Meena : D.B.Special Appeal Writ No. 228/2020

decided on 23/7/2020, State of Rajasthan vs. Indu Bala

Kumawat : D.B.Special Appeal Writ No. 1046/2018 decided on

1/6/2019 and P. Mahendran vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. :

(1990) 1 SCC 411.

It may be noticed here that the post of Lab Assistant, which

is subject matter of CWP No.6183/2020, the recruitment is

conducted by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Staff

Selection Board, whereas, the rest of the selections i.e. Senior

Teacher Gr.II in various subjects is conducted by the RPSC, which

is subject matter of rest of the writ petitions.

(15 of 27)

Learned Advocate General, at the outset, made submissions

that the stand taken by the Education Department in its reply filed

to the writ petition was factually and contextually incorrect and

that the State has filed an additional affidavit indicating the stand

of the State. It was emphasized by learned Advocate General that

the petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed on

the short ground that the selected candidates, who would be

affected by the outcome of the present writ petitions, if allowed,

have not been impleaded as party respondents to any of the writ

petitions. The affected selected candidates have not been

impleaded even in representative capacity also and as such, the

petitions be dismissed on this ground alone. It was also submitted

that the recruitment is also complete and even the reserved list

has been exhausted.

It was further submitted that all the writ petition are highly

belated inasmuch as the same have been filed from June to

September, 2020, whereas, the corrigendum was issued by the

RPSC on 4/6/2018, which gave the cause of action, if any, to the

petitioners. Further, the final select lists were also issued in the

month of February and March, 2020 and, therefore, on the ground

of delay as well, the petitions deserve to be dismissed.

Learned Advocate General further emphasized that as the

corrigendum was issued way back on 4/6/2018 and the written

examinations were held thereafter, the provisional merit list was

issued in the month of July and August, 2019 and the petitioners

continued to participate in the selection process till the declaration

of the final select list and, thereafter, also after waiting for quite

(16 of 27)

long, have filed the present petitions, therefore, they are estopped

from challenging the inclusion of areas pursuant to the Notification

dated 19/5/2018.

Further submissions were made that the Commissioner,

Tribal Area Development Department, Udaipur had addressed a

communication dated 23/5/2018 requiring the RPSC and the

Selection Board to take steps in accordance with the Notification

dated 19/5/2018 and in the corrigendum dated 4/6/2018 a

specific reference to the letter dated 23/5/2018 has been made

and as such, it cannot be said that the RPSC has acted contrary to

the directions of the State in this regard and, therefore, the plea

sought to be raised has no basis.

Learned Advocate General further emphasized that insofar as

the Notification issued for the post of Lab Assistants is concerned,

the Staff Selection Board in its advertisement dated 9/5/2018 has

specifically indicated that the position of reservation and

recruitment process would be under the latest directions of the

State Government and the Rules and as such, the petitioners are

bound by the stipulation, besides the fact that the petition therein

also is highly belated, wherein, the final selections took place on

20/12/2019 and the petition has been filed on 21/7/2020 without

impleading the affected parties.

On the aspect of seeking increase in number of posts for the

TSP area, besides what was indicated in the advertisement, in

proportion to the newly added area, learned Advocate General

made submissions that the State has not notified all the

vacancies. It was submitted with reference to the chart produced

(17 of 27)

for perusal of the Court that out of large number of vacancies in

various Districts, only part of the vacancies were advertised. By

way of example, it was indicated that in Udaipur, out of 674

vacant posts of Senior Teachers, 286 vacancies were advertised.

It was submitted that there is no obligation on the part of

the State to advertise all the vacancies and no mandamus in this

regard can be sought from the Court as there is neither any right

in the petitioners nor any corresponding duty on the part of the

State. It was submitted that abolition and creation of posts is the

sole prerogative of the State and as such, the petitioners cannot

seek increase in the posts as prayed in the writ petitions.

Qua increase in posts of Agriculture Supervisors, it is

submitted that as the State was hard pressed to seek vacation of

the interim order, the concession was made and again emphasized

that therein also the State exercised its prerogative in the

circumstances of the case.

Making submissions pertaining to the applicability of the

Notification dated 19/5/2018, it was submitted that the

Notification came into effect at once, which is clear from its

language and as such, the same was applicable to the pending

recruitments also. However, regarding applicability of Notification

dated 4/7/2016 on account of increased area, it was submitted

that the same pertains to determination of vacancies at the State

level and cannot be applied to each individual advertisement and

as not even the existing posts as on 1/4/2018 in TSP area are

being filled, it cannot be claimed that the action of the State is in

violation of the Notification dated 4/7/2016.

(18 of 27)

Learned Advocate General also emphasized that the

corrigendum dated 4/6/2018 is not under challenge in any of the

writ petitions.

Reliance was placed on Surendra Singh Rathore vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : CWP no. 13208/2019 decided on 6/12/2019,

Bhagvat Singh & Ors. vs. State & Ors. : D.B.Special Appeal Writ

No. 176/2020 decided on 20/7/2020, Manish Kumar Nagda & Ors.

vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.8529/2018 decided on

23/7/2018, Lalit Kumar vs. UGC & Ors. : SBCWP No.7545/2017

decided on 28/11/2017, Dr. N.C.Singhal vs. UOI & Ors. : (1980) 3

SCC 29, Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals vs. Workmen, Indian

Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited : (2007) 1 SCC 408, Divisional

Manager, Aravali Golf Club & Anr. vs. Chander Hass & Anr. :

(2008) 1 SCC 683 and Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. :

(2020) 2 SCC 173.

In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners made

submissions that the corrigendum based on communication dated

23/5/2018 could not been issued by the RPSC once the

Department of Personnel in its communication dated 1/6/2018

had specifically indicated that the same would apply to

advertisements issued after 19/5/2018, despite that the

corrigendum was issued on 4/6/2018, which is beyond the Circular

dated 1/6/2018.

It was further submitted that there was no occasion for the

petitioners to question the validity of the corrigendum dated

4/6/2018 at the relevant time as by then the petitioners did not

(19 of 27)

know the effect and as to whether they would be ultimately

selected or not.

In relation to the plea pertaining to selected candidates not

being impleaded as parties, it was indicated that one of the

petitions was filed on 2/11/2019 and the result of Social Science,

though was declared provisionally on 29/7/2019, the final result

was declared on 16/3/2020 and the reserve list was operated on

6/8/2021. Submissions were also made that though the Court on

10/9/2020 in CWP No. 6486/2020 had granted interim order, the

respondents went on to operate the reserve list qua which

contempt petitions are pending.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

A look at the reliefs, as claimed by the petitioners, would

reveal that they have virtually sought exclusion of candidates

belonging to the newly added areas to TSP area and consequently

setting aside of their selections and in the alternative, number of

posts meant for TSP area as per the advertisement be increased

as per the area added pursuant to the Notification dated

19/5/2018.

The advertisement for recruitment on the post of Senior

Teacher Gr.II was issued on 9/4/2018 for various subjects for TSP

area inter alia indicating the posts for which the recruitment was

to be undertaken. The submission made by learned Advocate

General needs to be noticed at this stage that not all the vacant

posts in TSP area as on 1/4/2018 were advertised and even on

(20 of 27)

the date of issuance of advertisement several posts in TSP area

were vacant.

Whereafter, once the advertisement was issued, came the

Notification dated 19/5/2018 issued under sub-paragraph (2) of

paragraph 6 of Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India by which

the Scheduled Area/TSP areas for the State was redefined,

resulting in certain more areas getting included in the existing

TSP areas, which was declared way back in the year 1981. The

order was directed to come into force 'at once'. The Commissioner,

Tribal Area Development Board acted swiftly in issuing

communication dated 23/5/2018 (Annex. R/1) to the RPSC and

the Selection Board. Apparently, based on the said

communication, the RPSC issued corrigendum dated 4/6/2018 qua

various pending recruitment notifications including the present

notification dated 9/4/2018 extending the last date of filing on-line

applications and enabling the candidates of the newly included

areas to apply. Though, apparently the Department of Personnel in

the Circular dated 1/6/2018, which was marked to the RPSC as

well as the Staff Selection Board, directed that the same would

apply to the advertisements issued after 19/5/2018.

Irrespective of issuance of Notification dated 4/6/2018,

making eligible the candidates of the newly included areas, the

petitioners apparently did not question the validity of the

corrigendum and continued with their pursuit in terms of the

advertisement along with the corrigendum. In the present writ

petitions, no relief worth the name qua the corrigendum dated

4/6/2018 has been sought.

(21 of 27)

So far as the submission made that the petitioners had no

occasion to question the validity of corrigendum dated 4/6/2018

at the relevant time, as by then the petitioners did not know as to

whether they would be ultimately selected or not, cannot be

countenanced, as once the petitioners had grievance qua including

the candidates of newly included TSP area in the said recruitment,

the cause of action arose to them then & there and they could not

have waited till such time that the final selection lists were issued

pertaining to the recruitment. Even otherwise, despite the

challenge laid to the final selection lists in the present writ

petitions, there is no challenge, even now, to the corrigendum

dated 4/6/2018.

The recruitment proceeded by holding of the written

examination, declaration of provisional selection list, document

verification and publication of final select list. Whereafter also,

after passage of sometime, the challenge has been laid to the

selections made by questioning the inclusion of the areas pursuant

to the Notification dated 19/5/2018 and corrigendum dated

4/6/2018.

Admittedly, the petitioners were well aware of the selection

of the candidates and that in case plea, as raised by them, is

accepted/relief claimed is granted, the same would affect the

selected candidates, the petitioners have not impleaded the

selected candidates as party respondents to the present petitions,

looking to the large number of persons affected, the petitioners

could have impleaded few of them in the representative capacity.

(22 of 27)

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Praboth Verma & Ors. vs.

State of U.P. & Ors. : (1984) 4 SCC 251 has inter alia laid down as

under:

"28. The real question before us, therefore, is the correctness of the decision of the High Court in the Sangh's case. Before we address ourselves to this question, we would like to point out that the writ petition filed by the Sangh suffered from two serious, though not incurable, defects. The first defect was that of non-joinder of necessary parties. The only respondents to the Sangh's petition were the State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned officers. Those who were vitally concerned, namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not made parties-not even by joining some of them in a representative capacity, considering that their number was too large for all of them to be joined individually as respondents. The matter, therefore, came to be decided in their absence. A High Court ought not to decide a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution without the persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before it as respondents in a representative capacity if their number is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad High Court ought not to have proceeded to hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ petition without insisting upon the reserve pool teachers being made respondents to that writ petition, or at least some of them being made respondents in a representative capacity, and had the petitioners refused to do so, ought to have dismissed that petition for non- joinder of necessary parties."

(emphasis supplied)

In view of absence of selected candidates, who are directly

affected by the outcome of the present petitions, the petitions are

liable to be dismissed on this count.

The submission made with regard to respondents despite

passing of the interim order dated 10/9/2020 in CWP No.

6486/2020 having operated the reserve list and contempt petition

in this regard being pending, by itself cannot absolve the

petitioners from the necessity of seeking impleadment of selected

candidates in the present writ petitions, as even if the respondents

herein have allegedly operated the reserve list despite grant of

(23 of 27)

interim order by the Court, the candidates appointed cannot be

held liable for the same and as they are affected by the outcome

of the present writ petitions, their presence is necessary.

Further, the aspect which needs to be noticed is that despite

specific objections raised by the respondents with regard to non-

impleadment and the petitions have remained pending thereafter,

the petitioners have chosen not to implead the successful

candidates as party respondents to the petitions, which inaction

on the part of petitioners cannot be countenanced and, as such, in

absence of the selected candidates, who would be affected by the

outcome of the present writ petitions, who are necessary parties

to the present writ petitions, the petitions cannot succeed and are

liable to be dismissed on this count alone.

Besides the above, the fact that the petitioners were well

aware of the corrigendum dated 4/6/2018, chose not to question

its validity at the relevant time and continued to participate in the

recruitment process and have approached this Court after the final

selections have taken place, is also apparently fatal to the cause

of the petitioners inasmuch as they are estopped from challenging

the process having participated pursuant to the advertisement and

the corrigendum issued therein.

In the case of Anupal Singh (supra), wherein, challenge was

laid to category wise vacancies, it was inter alia observed by

Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

".........It is thus clear that the candidates who appeared in the interview were well aware about the modification/revision in number of vacancies of Technical Assistants in different categories. The private respondents/intervening applicants have appeared in the

(24 of 27)

interview with their eyes wide open regarding the modified vacancies to be filled up in various categories of the posts. Having appeared in the interview without any demur or protest, it is not open to the candidates to challenge the selection process on the ground that there was modification in the number of vacancies in different categories and they are estopped by the principle of estoppel from challenging the same.

61. The private respondents knew that by the revised notification dated 12.10.2014, the number of vacancies of different categories have been changed and knowing the same, they participated in the interview and have taken a chance and opportunity thereon without any protest. Having participated in the interview and having failed in the final selection, it is not open to the private respondents to turn around and challenge the revised notification dated 12.10.2014 and the revised requisition of the number of vacancies in different categories. Having regard to the consistent view taken by the Supreme Court, the High Court should not have granted any relief to the private respondents/intervenors."

(emphasis supplied)

In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,

apparently, the petitioners, having participated in the selection

process after corrigendum dated 4/6/2018 was issued, are

estopped from questioning its validity/its implication.

It may also be noticed here that the RPSC issued the

corrigendum dated 4/6/2018 not in relation to the present

recruitments only but qua the pending recruitments pertaining to

TSP areas i.e. advertisement No.5/2017-18, 7/2017-18, 9/2017-

18, 12/2017-18, 4/2018-19, 9/2018-19 and 12/2018-19, in which

advertisement No.5/2017-18 was issued on 23/3/2018. As such,

the RPSC has acted qua all the pending recruitments in a wholly

non-discreminatory manner and based on the directions of the

Commissioner, Tribal Area Development Department, Udaipur, as

such the action cannot be said to be, in any manner, arbitrary.

So far as various orders & judgments cited by the petitioners

are concerned, in the peculiar circumstances of the present cases

(25 of 27)

and the manner in which the petitioners have chosen to proceed

with the present litigation, the same would have no application to

the present cases.

The additional aspect relied on by the learned Advocate

General in relation to the recruitment pertaining to Lab Assistant

regarding the stipulation made in the advertisement dated

9/5/2018 is also significant, which reads as under:

"¼2½ vkj{k.k dh fLFkfr ,oa fu;qfDr izfdz;k jkT; ljdkj ds funsZ'kksa ,oa uohure fu;eksa ds v/;/khu ifjorZuh; gksxhA "

The stipulation by way of special note has indicated that the

status of the reservation and appointment procedure would be

subject to change under the directions of the State Government

and the latest Rules, as such in view of the above stipulation and

the fact that the notification dated 19/5/2018 has come into force

'at once', the petitioners are bound by the stipulation in the

advertisement.

Coming to the aspect of seeking directions to the State to

increase the number of posts in proportion to the freshly included

area pursuant to the Notification dated 19/5/2018, emphasis has

been placed on the Notification dated 4/7/2016 (Annex.15).

Besides the fact that the said Notification came to be superseded

by Notification dated 21/10/2019, the said aspect regarding

proportion as per the population of TSP area in relation to the

population of the State for recruitments at the State level, loses

its significance in view of the specific submission made by learned

Advocate General that the present recruitment does not pertain to

the entire existing vacancies of TSP area as on 1/4/2018. Once

(26 of 27)

the advertisement pertains to part of the existing vacancies even

of the area as on 1/4/2018, by mere inclusion of the additional

area, even if the total number of posts were to be increased, the

same cannot be made a basis for seeking increase in the 'posts

advertised' inasmuch as if the State was to fill up all the vacant

posts of the TSP area, it is only in that case that the above aspect

would have gained significance as such, the plea raised in this

regard also, apparently, has no basis.

Irrespective of above determination that only on inclusion of

areas through Notification dated 19/5/2018 'the posts as

advertised need not be increased', it is well settled that no

mandamus regarding increasing the number of posts can be

issued.

A coordinate bench of this Court in Surendra Singh Rathore

(supra) while dealing with the implication of EWS reservation inter

alia came to the following conclusion:

"33. The creation or abolition of posts is an exclusive domain of the State Government and this Court cannot direct the State Government to create additional posts for the implementation of EWS reservation in the pending recruitments. Thus, the decision of the State Government in not implementing EWS reservation to the pending recruitments, where the examinations have already been held or where the result has been declared, cannot be said illegal or contrary to the Rules which govern the said recruitment."

Further, in the case of Divisional Manager, Aravali Golf Club

(supra), following the judgment in the case of Indian Drugs &

Pharmaceuticals Limited (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court came to

the conclusion that it cannot direct creation of posts. Creation and

sanction of posts is prerogative of the executive or legislative

authorities and the Court cannot arrogate to itself this purely

(27 of 27)

executive and legislative function and direct creation of post in any

organization.

In view of the above, it is apparent that the directions

sought seeking increase of posts, in the circumstances of the

present case, cannot be granted.