Madan Lal vs R P S C Ajmer And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 7629 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18846/2017
Madan Lal Son Of Narayan Singh, Resident Of Village Bandha
Chouth, Post Nigohi, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur Raj. Roll No.
206044
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     The Rajasthan Public Service Comission, Ajmer Through
       Its Secretary
2.     The   Principal     Secretary,         Department         Of   Education
       Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18848/2017

1. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Kalyan Singh, Resident Of Village Awar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 204331

2. Virendra Singh Son Of Hari Ram, Resident Of Village Dhonota, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 213192

3. Abhayveer Singh Son Of Ram Karan Singh Jat, Resident Of Village Pali, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 205141

4. Gajendra Singh Son Of Jiya Lal, Resident Of Vpo Newara, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 205334

5. Surendra Singh Son Of Atar Singh, Resident Of Village Barbara, Post Luhasha, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 202915

6. Rohitash Singh Son Of Chandan Singh, Resident Of Village Ajan, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 210090

7. Pratibha Arya Daughter Of Virendra Singh, Resident Of Salimpur, Baroli Chhar, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 204948

8. Phool Singh Of Badri Singh, Resident Of Village Pura, Maloni Khurd Tehsil Rupbas, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 201405

9. Gambheer Singh Son Of Badan Singh, Resident Of Village Nagla Birharu, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 202672

(2 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

10. Kaptan Singh Son Of Dharam Singh, Resident Of Suraj Bagh Colony Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur Raj Roll No. 201221

11. Pooja Daughter Of Vijay Singh, Resident Of Village Basua, Post Bansi Khurd, Tehsil Bharatpur District Bhaatpur. Roll No. 205070

----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Comission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18856/2017

1. Chandresh Thanua Daughter Of Shri Kripal Singh Thanua, Resident Of Dhankar Bhawan, Basan Gate, Bharatpur District Bharatpur. Roll No. 205858

2. Ajay Foujdar Son Of Vijay Singh, Resident Of 59, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur District Bharatpur. Roll No. 210382

3. Yashpal Singh Son Of Laxman Singh, Resident Of Village Shahpur, Post Bahatana, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur Roll No. 210370

----Petitioners Versus

1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13643/2018

1. Arun Singh S/o Shri Niranjan Singh, By Caste Jat, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Nagla Hathipura, Post Pipla, Tehsil And District Bharatpur (Raj.)

2. Mohar Singh S/o Shri Maharaj Singh, By Caste Jat, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Bandha Chauth Tehsil Deeg District Bharatpur (Raj.)

3. Hushiyar Singh S/o Shri Bharat Singh, By Caste Jat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Mehrawar, Tehsil Kumher, District

(3 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Joint Secretary, Department Of Personal, Secretraiat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Secretary

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14001/2018 Mordhwaj Singh S/o Kedar Singh, aged about 31 years, R/o Village Shahpur, Post Pahrasar, tehsi Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner

3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16368/2018 Ashiwani Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Village Dayawali, Post Kakhanpur, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur Raj.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

3. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16384/2018

1. Neha D/o Devendra Singh Kuntal, aged 26 years, R/o Ward No. 43, Surajmal Nagar, Near Kendriya Vidyala, Bharatpur (Raj.)

2. Jai Singh Kuntal S/o Shri Girraj Singh Kuntal, Aged About

(4 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

32 Years, R/o V&P Abhorra, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

2. Bhanwar Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged 25 Years, R/o Village Khanpur, Post Jharoti, Tehsil Bhusawar, Distt. Bharatpur (Raj.)

3. Lokednra Chaudhary S/o Kamal Singh, Aged 28 Years, R/o V&P Januthar, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan through it Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Department of Education, Govt. of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner

4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer through its Secretary

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19114/2018 Poonam Chaudhary D/o Shri Rambabu Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Kurka, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22077/2018 Sameer Pratap Singh S/o Shyam Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Qtr. No.8, Telecom Colony Bsnl, Rajendra Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.).

                                                                      ----Petitioner



                                         (5 of 13)                 [CW-18846/2017]


                                   Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22238/2018 Ravindra Kumar S/o Badari Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o V And P Jharkai, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25454/2018 Dharmendra Singh Choudhary S/o Shyam Singh Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, R/o V And P Katara, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(6 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25457/2018 Neeraj Kumari S/o Shyam Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o V And P Katara Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner

4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Harendra Meel, Mr. Pukhaj Chawla and Ms. Sarah Sharma Mr. J.K. Moolchandani Mr. S.K. Beniwal Mr. Pradeep Bochaliya Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal Mr. Satish Khandelwal Mr. Dilip Singh Kurka Mr. Sandeep Saxena

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vivek Tyagi, Dy. G.C.

Mr. M.F. Baig Mr. Ganesh Parihar, AAG with Mr. Rahul Sehra Ms. Charvi Patni on behalf of Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC Mr. Saurbh Sharma Mr. Nitin Jain Mr. S.S. Raghav with Mr. Anirudh Singh Raghav Mr. Hari Kishan Saini Mr. Amit Kuri

(7 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

Mr. K.D. Nagar

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA Order 15/12/2021

In all the bunch matters, the controversy arises out of letter

dated 17.05.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel whereby

benefit of reservation to "Jat Community" candidates of Bharatpur

and Dholpur districts was denied in those selection process where

appointment order had been issued even to a single candidate in

pursuance to the recommendation made by the RPSC and RSMSB.

Before proceeding on, brief history of the present matters is

essential, which is detailed out as under:

In the State of Rajasthan vide Notification dated 01.01.2000,

OBC reservation was granted to "Jat Community" of Bharatpur and

Dholpur districts. The said Notification came to be challenged and

vide judgment dated 10.08.2015 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition

No. 6046/1999; Ratan Lal Bagri & Ors. Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors., the said Notification was quashed and the

reservation as granted by the State, was held to be invalid.

In the case of Ummed Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of

Rajasthan; Civil Writ Petition No. 17662/2015 (decided on

01.12.2015) passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the

ratio as laid down in Ratan Lal Bagri's case (supra) was

considered and it was again reiterated that reservation in

pursuance to the Notification cannot be given.

Interestingly vide notification dated 23.08.2017 the State

Government proceeded on to again grant the reservation to the

"Jat Community" of Bharatpur and Dholpur districts in OBC

category. In the circumstances, there was no clarification as to

(8 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

whether the reservation is to be granted to the said community or

not in light of Ratan Lal Bagri's case. Therefore, clarifications were

sought by RPSC from the Department of Personnel. Vide letter

dated 14.12.2017, the first clarification given by Department of

Personnel was to the effect that reservation was to be given in all

those matters wherein appointments had not been offered yet in

pursuance to the recommendations, irrespective of date of

advertisement. The second clarification was given by the

Department of Personnel vide letter dated 29.12.2017 wherein too

it was clarified that in all the appointments which are to be given

after the notification dated 23.08.2017, the reservation to Jat

Community of Bharatpur and Dholpur district would be granted in

the category of OBC.

The anomaly arose when, on 02.05.2018, in SB Civil

Contempt Petition No. 330/2018 Mukesh Kumar Vs. Giriraj Singh

Kushwah, a statement was given by the learned AAG, on

instructions by the Secretary, Department of Personnel as under :

"He submitted that on this decision the notification dated 23.08.2017 will apply to recruitment processes which has not been completed as of that date and the recruitment process is taken to be completed on the date where following the select list being forwarded to the Government, the first appointment is made."

After the said statement been given and been directed by

this Court to file an affidavit in that regard, letter dated

17.05.2018 was issued by the Department of Personnel wherein it

was clarified that in all the recruitment processes, wherein an

appointment to even a single candidate has been afforded after

recommendation, the said recruitment would be deemed to be

complete for all purposes and therefore, the reservation would not

(9 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

be applicable in those matters. The said Letter is the bone of

contention in the present matters.

It has been argued by counsel for the petitioner that because

of the said Letter/clarification, an anomaly has arisen because of

many further developments.

Counsel has argued that present are the cases wherein the

result was first declared but either because of the intervention of

the Court or because of some fault on the part of Department

itself, the result had been revised. In many of these matters

although earlier some appointments had been afforded but

because of the revised result, the remaining seats were to be

filled-up in terms of the revised result.

The contention of the petitioner is that if the notification

dated 23.08.2017 is to apply then in those recruitment processes,

although because of revised result the petitioner stands in merit

but would not be granted reservation as it would be deemed to be

complete in terms of Clarification/Letter dated 17.05.2018. In

those cases where recruitment process had started prior to the

Notification dated 23.08.2017 but all the vacancies as advertised

had not been filled up and meanwhile, the result was revised, in

those cases, the candidates cannot be denied the benefit of

reservation in garb of letter dated 17.05.2018. Further it has also

been argued by counsel for the petitioner that similar situation

arose in case of Most Backward Class reservations. The

Notification by which the reservation to the most backward class

was granted by the State, was quashed by this Court. Later the

State Government again granted the reservation to those classes.

In those cases, the State Government proceeded on to grant

reservation even in those matters wherein the process was

(10 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

undergoing irrespective of the fact that the appointment to any of

other candidates had already been afforded. Therefore the

contention of the petitioner is that the State cannot adopt two

different policies for two different sets of people. It has been

argued that if in the case of Most Backward Classes, the State has

adopted the policy of granting reservation in all matters

undergoing recruitment process irrespective of date of first

appointment or the date of result, the same benefit should be

granted in the present matters too.

On the other hand counsel for the respondents argued that

if the said principle is to be applied now at this stage, the same

would create anomaly as many of the vacancies have already been

filled-up without granting the benefit of reservation and now if

reservation is to be granted, the same would outnumber the of

vacancies which were advertised. In these circumstances, the

State would not be in a position to afford appointment in absence

of vacancies as earlier directions have already been issued by this

court that candidates who have already been afforded

appointment can not be disturbed now. If the reservation is to be

afforded to the fresh candidates, the same would depend on the

number of vacancies and the State would not have sufficient

vacancies to adjust all the candidates.

It has also been argued by counsel for the respondents that

where appointments have been afforded to the candidates,

process should be deemed to have been completed as the select

list has been operated upon. If at this stage, reservation is to be

granted to fresh candidates, the same would amount to revision of

select list which cannot be held to be permissible.

(11 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

In response to the arguments raised by the respondents,

counsel for the petitioner has referred to Annexure-12, letter

dated 27.01.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel wherein

it has been directed that :

"orZeku esa izfØ;k/khu HkfrZ;ksa ¼ftuesa ifj.kke tkjh gksdj laiw.kZ vfHkLrkouk,a ugha gqbZ gSa½ ,oa ftu HkfrZ;ksa ds laca/k esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkjriqj ,oa /kkSyiqj ds tkV vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fiNM+k oxZ esa ekuus ds U;kf;d vkns'k Hkh gSa muds laca/k esa vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fiNM+k oxZ esa ekurs gq, HkrhZ dh vfxze izfØ;k dh tk;sA bu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fiNM+k oxZ esa ekus tkus ds dkj.k HkrhZ ds ifj.kke esa la'kks/ku gksuk laHkkfor gS rFkk dfri; fiNM+k oxZ ds vH;FkhZ tks vU;Fkk ifj.kke ds vk/kkj ij p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph esa vk jgs Fks] os ifj.kke esa la'kks/ku ds QyLo:i p;u ls ckgj gks ldrs gSa] mUgsa p;u ls oafpr ugha fd;k tkos vfirq mudks Hkh p;u lwph esa LFkku fn;k tkosA fiNM+k oxZ esa bl dkj.k ls gks jgs vkf/kD; gsrq vf/kla[; in] mi;qDr lek;kstu gsrq l`ftr fd, tk;saxsA rFkkfi vf/kdka'k HkfrZ;ksa esa vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk TokWbu ugha djus dk dkj.k vf/kla[; inksa ds l`ftr fd, tkus dh fLFkfr ugha jgsxh] fQj Hkh dqN HkfrZ;ksa esa ;g laHko gSA vr% muesa mruh gh la[;k esa vfrfjDr vf/kla[; in l`ftr dj HkfrZ;ka iw.kZ dh tk;sxhA "

Heard the parties and perused the material available on

record.

It is clear on record that after issuance of Notification dated

23.08.2017 and the clarifications as mentioned above issued by

the Department of Personnel, the State has proceeded on to grant

benefit of reservation to the "Jat Community" of Bharatpur and

Dholpur districts in all the recruitment process wherein all the

vacancies as advertised had not been filled up. There are certain

interim orders of this Court available on record wherein this Court

had directed the petitioners to be granted the benefit of

reservation irrespective of the date of result and even irrespective

of the fact that recruitment process had been complete in terms of

the statement of the State that it would be deemed to be

complete even if one person had been appointed.

Therefore, it is clear that in many matters, the reservation

has been granted to the petitioners after the issuance of the

Notification dated 23.08.2017. Even in matters pertaining to

reservation of Most Backward Class category, the State

(12 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

Government has adopted the policy to grant reservation

irrespective of the status of recruitment process. A perusal of the

affidavit as filed by the petitioner and the reply thereof by the

RPSC makes it clear on record that in the matters of Most

Backward Class the State has neither adopted any cut-off date nor

has determined any finish line for the grant of reservation but has

adopted a simple formula to extend the benefit in all the pending

recruitment processes.

In the opinion of this Court, the State cannot adopt two

different policies for two different categories/class of reservation

when the matter stands on the same footing and on the same

facts and circumstances. It is clear on record that the notification

granting reservation to "Jat Community" of Bharatput and Dholpur

districts and the notification granting reservation to the "Most

Backward Class" category both were quashed by this Court and in

both the matters the State Government had issued fresh

notification re-granting the same benefit. Therefore, both the

reservations stand on the same footing and the State is required

to follow the same principle in both the matters.

Even otherwise this Court has interfered in many matters of

which the orders are available on record wherein interim relief has

been granted to the candidates. Therefore, it is clear that if this

stand of the State Government is accepted that in all those

matters where even one appointment had been given, the process

would be deemed to be complete, the same would create an

anomaly because in all the matters in hands, there is a revised list

issued by the State in pursuance to a revised result. Revised list

had been issued either in pursuance to directions of Court or

because of some fault on the part of Department itself. In those

(13 of 13) [CW-18846/2017]

matters there would be many candidates who would now be

entitled for appointment because of the revised list if the

reservation is granted to them. These people can now not be

denied the benefit of reservation only on the ground that in

pursuance to the earlier result some candidates had been offered

appointment. It cannot be the fault of the candidate if the result

has been revised, particularly when the recruitment process is

undergoing and the vacancies are yet to be filled up.

In view of the above observations and in opinion of this

Court, the present anomaly can be set to rest only if State is

directed to grant the benefit of reservation in all those recruitment

processes where complete vacancies as advertised have not been

filled-up till date.

Therefore, letter/clarification dated 17.05.2018 issued by the

Department of Personnel is quashed and the present writ petitions

are disposed of with the following directions:

(i) the State is directed to grant benefit of reservation in all the

recruitment processes wherein the result had been revised and

complete vacancies as advertised, have not been filled-up till date

irrespective of the date of result.

(ii) In all those cases where the result had been revised and

application for change of category has been invited by the

Department and option thereof has been exercised by the

candidates, the benefit of reservation would be granted to those

candidates.

A copy of this order be placed in each of the file.

(REKHA BORANA),J

Ashu/

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)