Rajasthan High Court
Shanker Lal Jat S/O Shri Kailash ... vs The Principal Secretary on 29 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4628/2019
Shanker Lal Jat S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Jat
----Petitioner
Versus
The Principal Secretary
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C L Saini, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
29/01/2021
Both the counsels are in agreement that the issued involved
in the present writ petition stands covered by the observations
and directions given in the case of Principal Secretary
Education Department (Elementary) & Ors. Versus Urmila
Devi & Ors., DB Civil Special Appeal No.924/2019 decided
vide judgment dated 07.01.2020. It would be useful to quote the
para 4 to 8 of the said judgment passed by the Division Bench
which are as under:-
"4.The limited prayer of the writ
petitioners/respondents was that after the
selection process crossed the first stage, numbers
of seats remained vacant and such vacant seats
ought to have been filled up against the wait list of
the selected candidates, in accordance with Rule
227A of the Rules of 1996.
5.Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional
Advocate General submits that after the
advertisement in question was being acted upon,
another fresh advertisement was issued on
31.07.2018,whereby recruitment process was
initiated afresh, and thus, the earlier recruitment
process came to an end, and no vacant seat could
have been filled from amongst the wait listed
(2 of 3) [CW-2446/2019]
selected candidates, as the vacancies in question
stood lapsed. Learned Additional Advocate General
has also relied upon the circular dated 26.04.2018
issued by the State whereby, it has been
stipulated that once the fresh process of
recruitment starts, the whole selection process
previously held alongwith its wait list stand lapsed,
and thus, rest of the vacancies have to be filled up
only by conducting the fresh process of
recruitment.
6.Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel
appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents,
however, submits that had the advertisement for
the post in question been issued after completion
of the selection process arising out of the revised
advertisement dated 11.09.2017, then it would
have been a different proposition, but it is not a
case whereby, the exercise in question was
discontinued and in fact, most of the
appointments were made only after initiation of
fresh advertisement dated31.07.2018.
7.After hearing the learned counsel for the
parties and perusing the record of the case, this
Court finds that the direction given by the learned
Single Judge is limited to the extent that Proviso
to Clause (vi) of Rule 227A of the Rules of 1996
shall be operated by the concerned authorities
against the vacant posts, if any, qua the posts
advertised, and reserved list exists. This Court has
taken note of the additional affidavit filed by the
State which clearly mentions that as against 4960
posts advertised vide the advertisement dated
6.7.2016, as revised vide advertisement dated
6.7.2016, only 3943 candidates joined, and thus,
826 posts remained vacant, even after the fresh
advertisement dated31.7.2018. Thus, the issuance
of the later advertisement dated31.7.2018, even
before completion of the earlier process, negates
the application of the aforementioned circular
dated 26.4.2018.
8.In light of the aforesaid factual matrix, the
impugned order does not call for any interference
and the appeal stands dismissed accordingly.
However, the appellants are directed to operate
the wait list only to the extent of the posts vacant
as on date, in pursuance of advertisement dated
6.7.2016 as revised vide advertisement dated
11.9.2017. All pending applications also stand
dismissed."
(3 of 3) [CW-2446/2019]
The issue and controversy raised by the petitioner is identical
as above. In view thereof, the present petition is also stand
disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
NITIN /64
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
