Abdul Razzak S/O Shri Abdul Rauoof vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 1018 Raj/2

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8211/2020

1.   Abdul Razzak S/o Shri Abdul Rauoof, Aged About 46
     Years, R/o Ward No. 20, Kazi Pada, Tehsil Todabhim,
     District Karauli, Rajasthan.
2.   Ranbir Singh S/o Shri Manyaram, Aged About 24 Years,
     R/o Dewasiyo Ka Bas, Riyan Pipar, District Jaipur ,
     Rajasthan.
3.   Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Hansraj, Aged About 23 Years,
     R/o Ward No. 11, House No. 286, Near Railway Line,
     Jodkiyan 14 Llw, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
4.   Gori Shankar S/o Shri Parsram Verma, Aged About 28
     Years, R/o House No. 302, Ward No. 24, Sector No. 5,
     Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
5.   Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Puranram, Aged About 25
     Years,    R/o     Village     Ramkan,          Post       Nyolakhi,   Tehsil
     Rawastar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
6.   Radha Devi D/o Shri Krishan, Aged About 25 Years,
     Resident Of Ward No. 10, Near Ram Dev Mandir, Jodkiyan
     14 Llw, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
7.   Amit Barala S/o Shri Rajender Kuamr, Aged About 23
     Years,    Resident      Of    Ward      No.      11,      Dhanasar    Tehsil
     Rawatsar District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
8.   Chetan Singh S/o Shri Madan Singh, R/o Rudiyo Ki Dhani,
     Village Itawa,l Tej Singh Ji Ka Bas, Phulera, District Jaipur
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                  Versus
1.   State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
     Medical    And     Health     Services        Department,         Govt.   Of
     Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariate, Jaipur.
2.   Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Secretary,
     Rajasthan       Staff   Selection        Board,          State   Agriculture
     Management Institution Premises, Durgapura, Japiur,
     Rajasthan
3.   Registrar, Rajasthan Para-Medical Council Jaipur, G-1A,
     Kisan Bhawan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur
                                                                ----Respondents

                                          (2 of 4)               [CW-8211/2020]




For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Manish Parihar
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. V.B.
                               Sharma, AAG
                               Mr. Bharat Saini, AGC

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

01/02/2021

Both the counsels are agreed that the case stands covered

by the judgment passed by the court in the case of Lalit Kishor vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors., SB Civil Writ Petition No.8908/2020,

along with connected matters, decided on 23.10.2020. Issue No.D

decided in the aforesaid case is as under:

"Candidates who submit that after revaluation result, they stand qualified, however, the date of revaluation was after last date of submission of the application form and also submit that revaluation should relate back to the date of declaration of the original result. 8.1 In Jenany J.R. Versus S. Rajeevan & Ors., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 798, the Apex Court was examining the question as to the crucial date, which should be considered for the candidate to possess requisite qualifications for the purpose of promotion and it was held as under:

"12. As has been mentioned hereinabove, the only question which is required to be considered by us in this appeal is whether on the date, vacancy had occurred i.e. on 1.7.2003, respondent No.1 was having requisite qualification or not to be appointed on the post of H.S.A. (Hindi).

13. It is not disputed that respondent No.1 was not qualified to be promoted as H.S.A on the date when the vacancy arose. It was conceded before learned Single Judge that in July, 2003, when the results of the examination were published, he had failed. However, he had applied for re- evaluation. Only after re- evaluation was done, he was declared pass in September, 2003 as per the communication sent to

(3 of 4) [CW-8211/2020]

him by Secretary, Board of Public Examinations. Thus, there was no dispute that on 1.7.2003, when the vacancy arose, admittedly, respondent No.1 was not duly qualified to be appointed as H.S.A (Hindi) as contemplated under Note 2 appended to Rule 43 of the Rules. This aspect of the matter has been dealt with by learned Single Judge in detail in para 5 of the judgment."

8.2 Thus, the said candidate - respondent No.1 though had passed the qualifying examination after declaration of his result upon revaluation, the Apex Court did not accept that he was eligible on the date when the vacancy arose and thus, did not accept the relate back theory to treat him as eligible on the crucial date.

8.3 The question regarding relate back of revaluation result was examined by this Court in Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1738/2012 & other connected petitions decided on 26.02.2014 and it was held that revaluation result cannot relate back to the date prior to cut-off date. 8.4 The petitioners in these writ petitions have submitted that result of revaluation was declared by the respondents on 31.07.2020 whereby they have been declared passed in Part-II Examination. The cut-off date fixed by the appointing authority was, however, 30.07.2020 and therefore, the petitioners could not fill online application form as they have not passed Part-II Examination of Diploma in DMLT upto 30.07.2020.

8.5 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the revaluation result should relate back to the original declaration of Part-II Examination result and it cannot be considered as a fault of the candidates and therefore, the petitioners having become eligible, should be allowed to fill up their form offline treating them eligible as on 30.07.2020 and by interim order, this Court also passed the direction to allow them to fill up their online form, however, the same was provisional and subject to the decision of the case.

8.6 Reply has been filed and the respondents have objected the same stating that the petitioners are ineligible on the cut-off date, which is sacrosanct. Merely because, revaluation result has come later on, it will not make them eligible as on cut-off date and revaluation result cannot relate back. 8.7 In view of the law, as noticed above, in Jitendra Kumar Shrotriya (supra) and Jenany J.R. (supra), this Court is of the firm view that the petitioners' candidature cannot be said to have acquired eligibility post facto upon declaration of result of

(4 of 4) [CW-8211/2020]

revaluation. The result of revaluation cannot relate back to the date when the original result was declared as such a view would not only to go contrary to the view taken by the Apex Court in Jenany J.R. (supra), but examine from other angle also, such a view would be unjustified: a situation is possible that revaluation result is declared of a candidate after a period of six months and in the meanwhile, entire selection process is over, therefore, can it be said that such revaluation result will make an ineligible candidate eligible and the entire selection process should be conducted individually for him? The answer is 'No'. The law as laid down by court must meet all contingencies and circumstances.

8.8 Although in the present case, result of revaluation was declared on the next day after the cut-off date, treating him eligible would be too dangerous a proposition of law and would unsettle the settled position that a person's candidature must be examined only on the cut-off date. In view thereof, all these writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed."

In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of in the

aforesaid terms.

All pending applications shall stand disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

Arun/34

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)