Rajasthan High Court

Sangita D/O Devi Lal vs State Of Rajasthan Through ... on 29 January, 2021

Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22356/2018
1.   Sangita D/o Devi Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 123,
     Dharmshala Ke Samne Wali Gali, Ram Nagar, Bhawani
     Mandi, Tehsil Pachpahar, District Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
2.   Shiv Lal S/o Madhu Lal Parihar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
     Shri Salodi Balaji Mandir, Village Chawanda, Jodhpur,
     Rajasthan.
3.   Kum. Usha D/o Radheyshyam Yadav, Aged About 44
     Years, R/o 69-A, Jawahar Colony, Jhalawar, District
     Jhalawar, Rajasthan.
4.   Prema Ram Bishnoi S/o Kesha Ram Bishnoi, Aged About
     33 Years, R/o Vpo Tapu, Hanumansagar, Tehsil Osian,
     District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
                                                              ----Petitioners
                               Versus
1.   State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Education Secretary,
     Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.   The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3.   Rajasthan Public        Service        Commission        Through     Its
     Secretary, Ajmer.
4.   Ram Singh Godara S/o Balwant Singh Godara, Govt.
     Upper Primary School, Kheta Nurat Ki Dhani, Sindhari,
     Barmer.
                                                            ----Respondents

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22334/2018

1. V K Gupta S/o Sh Murarilal, Village And Post Guhala, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar, Rajasthan

2. Mahesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meena, V And P Dhabawali, Tehsil Shree Madhopur, District Sikar, Rajasthan

3. Sanju Kumari D/o Shri Om Prakash, W/o Late Shri Vijaypal Singh, V And P Kataralthal, Tehsil Sikar, District Sikar, Rajasthan

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22408/2018

1. Hemant Kumar Joshi S/o Kanti Lal Joshi, Aged About 25

(2 of 5) [CW-22356/2018]

Years, R/o Vpo Diwara Bada, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

2. Dinesh Kumar Jat S/o Rameshwar Lal Jat, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Dhakawala, Post Bobas, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22684/2018 Vijay Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Yadav, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Kherki, Post Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner

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

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Mr. Himanshu Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Aditya Joshi for Mr. S.Zakawat Ali Mr. Nitin Jain

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

29/01/2021

Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the

petitioners have been ousted on the ground that the candidates

who were included in Jat category hail from Dholpur and

Bharatpur have come in the select list.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the RPSC submits

that petitioners have been ousted on the ground that first answer

(3 of 5) [CW-22356/2018]

key was found to be erroneous. The selection of the petitioners

based on the first answer key, thereafter, second answer key was

published. The second answer key came to be challenged before

this court and was upheld. The selection made on the basis of

second answer key was also upheld.

Challenge was taken to the Division Bench but the Division

Bench also rejected the contentions and upheld the second answer

key and selections made therein.

The submission of learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC

that petitioners were ousted on account of exclusion of "Jat" of

Dholpur and Bharatpur is misconceived. The petitioners' merit was

assessed independently and as per revised answer key, they have

been ousted.

I have considered the submissions and perused the

judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Ashok

Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B.

Special Appeal Writ No.1117/2019, decided vide judgment

dated 24.07.2019 wherein the Division Bench observed as

under:

"14. This court is of the opinion that a peculiar situation had arisen mainly on account of long drawn litigation in relation to recruitment of Teachers. Such protracted and layered litiagationm, sparing several rounds has become a common feature in relation to recruitments in the State of Rajasthan and this court has been made to examine each and every selection process and answer keys issued by the RPSC resulting in delay with the process of appointment of Teachers. In the present case too, a peculiar situation arose where the Division Bench made a judgment on 12th March, 2019 which was not brought to the knowledge of the learned Single Judge subsequently on 13th March, 2019. He diserted the State to issue a list after excluding ineligible candidates. The order of the Division Bench was for limited purpose of the appellants only. Thus, RPSC cannot be

(4 of 5) [CW-22356/2018]

faulted in having published the list in terms of direction issued on 13th March, 2019 on the basis of an answer key which was accepted for all the appointments made by the RPSC under the said advertisement save and except those who were in appeal before the Division Bench.

18. In view of the above, DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1117/2019 (Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) is allowed. The RPSC is directed to proceed with selection and issue appointment orders as per select list published by the RPSC dated 16th April, 2019 so far as it relates to the appointments in Bhunda Ram's case is concerned and to proceed further with the selection on the basis of waiting list dated 22nd May, 2019."

It is informed that the said judgment passed in the case of

Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. (supra) was subject matter of appeal

before the Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta &

Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2020

(13) SCALE 689 wherein the Supreme Court observed as under:

"13. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.

14. The submission made by the Respondents that the Appellants are not entitled to any relief as there is inordinate delay in approaching the Court is not necessary to be adjudicated upon in view of the findings in the preceding paragraphs. It is clear from the statement filed by the RPSC that there are vacancies existing which can be utilized for appointing the

(5 of 5) [CW-22356/2018]

Appellants. We are not inclined to give any direction except leaving it open to the RPSC and the State Government to fill up the existing vacancies from the Wait List in accordance with the merits of the candidates. The selection process which was stalled in view of the interim order passed by this Court should be completed within a period of 8 weeks from today. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 12.03.2019 committed an error in recording findings on the correctness of 05 questions by holding the opinion of the experts to be wrong. We are not setting aside the judgment as we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants- therein have already been appointed and we are not inclined to upset their appointments.

15. We uphold the Select List dated 21.05.2019 and the Wait List dated 22.05.2019 prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key."

In view of observations made in the case of Vikesh Kumar

Gupta & Ors. (supra), the respondents shall now proceed as per

second answer key's result and if in the second answer key, any of

the candidate is found in the waiting list and the posts are vacant,

they will also be considered.