Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Manoj Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 July, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6196/2021
Manoj Yadav S/o Ram Dutt Yadav, Aged About 34 Years, House
No.451/38, Rajiv Colony, Naharpur Roopa, Behind Vikas Service
Station, National Highway 8, Gurgaon, Haryana Currently Posted
At Air Force Station, Jodhpur And Residing At P 877/2 Diamond
Jubilee Complex, Air Force Station, Jodhpur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Governemnt Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Devendra Khatri through VC
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi through VC
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
12/07/2021
1. By way of the present writ petition the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 18.03.2021, whereby petitioner's
name has been excluded from the list of candidates called for
interview.
2. The facts appertain are that the petitioner applied for the
post of RAS-RTS, pursuant to the recruitment notification dated
02.04.2018 under the category of Ex-Servicemen by submitting
his application form on 12.05.2018.
(2 of 4) [CW-6196/2021]
3. Petitioner cleared the written examination and hence, his
name was reflected in the list of eligible candidates called for the
interview.
4. However, by way of order dated 18.03.2021, petitioner's
selection for interview, has been cancelled.
5. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent - Commission
submitted that petitioner had applied under Ex-Servicemen
category, whereas he had not retired on 12.05.2018 at the time of
submitting application form. According to the learned counsel for
the respondent, petitioner was required to furnish a proof of fact
that he had retired on 12.05.2018. He added that even till today,
the petitioner has not retired, hence, his candidature cannot be
considered in the category of Ex-Servicemen.
6. Mr. Khatri, learned counsel for the petitioner, at this juncture,
submitted that it was the fault of the respondent - Commission,
who took three years in completing the recruitment process. The
petitioner and other in service candidates cannot be expected to
take retirement unless they fall in merit list or are otherwise
assured of selection.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention
towards the amendment brought in Rajasthan Civil Services
(Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act of 1988') on 22.12.2020 and argued that after the
amendment in the Rules of 1988, an employee of the eligible
services can apply for the post and furnish a proof of his
retirement at the time of joining.
8. He argued that amendment brought by the State
Government w.e.f. 22.12.2020 is nevertheless beneficiary in
nature and the same should be applied retrospectively.
(3 of 4) [CW-6196/2021]
9. In response to petitioner's argument about retrospective
operation of amendment brought by the notification dated
22.12.2020, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent -
Commission, argued that the amendment notification was
categorical and the amendment has been made effective from the
date of publication of notification in the official gazette i.e.
22.12.2020. Hence, it cannot be given retrospective effect
contrary to the legislative intent. He argued that at the time of
submitting application form, Rule 6B of the Rules of 1988 required
a proof of retirement and since the petitioner has failed to furnish
any proof of retirement on the date of submitting application, he
cannot be considered as an ex-serviceman.
10. Heard.
11. In considered opinion of this Court the petitioner cannot be
considered as an Ex-Serviceman under the Rules of 1988, on the
basis of law that existed on the date of submitting his application
form i.e. 12.05.2018. At the relevant time when the petitioner
submitted his application form, Rule 6B of the Rules of 1988 was
applicable to those candidates who had either retired or who had
applied for retirement.
12. The facts of the present case make it abundantly clear that
on the date of submitting application form (12.05.2018), the
petitioner had not even applied for retirement; even his No
Objection Certificate also came to be issued on 23.02.2019.
Hence, it cannot be presumed that on the date of submitting
application form the petitioner even intended to take retirement
from the Armed Forces.
13. It is settled proposition of law that subordinate legislation
cannot be applied retrospectively. In the present case, the Rules
(4 of 4) [CW-6196/2021]
itself clearly stipulate the date of its applicability. Even if the rule,
as has been amended w.e.f. 22.12.2020, is taken into
consideration, it leaves no room for ambiguity and the same are
prospective in nature. The amendment, therefore, cannot be
applied to the present recruitment, which was initiated on
02.04.2018.
14. As an upshot of above discussion, this Court does not find
any infirmity in the order dated 18.03.2021, whereby petitioner's
name has been excluded from the list of eligible candidates called
for interview.
15. The writ petition is dismissed.
16. Stay application also stands dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
68-A.Arora/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
