State Of Rajasthan vs Avadhesh Kumar Jangid
2021 Latest Caselaw 17372 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 357/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Appellants Versus

1. Suresh Kumar Jat S/o Ram Nath Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dhani Jhilwali, Post Dhani Guman Singh, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.)

2. Neeraj Kumar S/o Kishan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/ o Village Kathera Chouth, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur.

3. Nirmala Kumari D/o Bhagirath Mal W/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Mardatu Badi, Post Bibipur Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar.

4. Vinod Kumar S/o Baidhanath Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Pahari, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar.

5. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village And Post Chakeri, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur.

6. Urmila Sharma D/o Bajrang Lal Sharma W/o Manmohan Dadhich, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 651, Barkat Nagar, In Front Of Phed Office, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.

7. Vikram Singh S/o Banshidhar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Pathana, Post Pacheri Kalan, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.

8. Balram S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Baniyala, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

9. Pawan Kumar S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Chak 1 Apd, Post Sukhchainpura, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.

10. Deepika D/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Ghardana Khurd, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.

                                                                      ----Respondents




                                         (2 of 15)                    [SAW-357/2021]


                            Connected With
                 D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 235/2021
1.   State   Of     Rajasthan,        Through         The      Secretary,       Rural
     Development           And        Panchayati            Raj      Department,

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Shri Raji Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Chak 1 Kwm Sansardesar, Post Office 3 Rjd (Mahadevwali), Tehsil Chhattargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan .

2. Gopal Ram Nain S/o Shri Satyanarayan Nain, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Khartwas, Post Dhana Bhakaran, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

3. Mukesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Jangid, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kotra, Post Borda, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

4. Rishi Raj Nagar S/o Shri Ram Lal Nagar,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Piplod, Tehsl Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.

5. Shreni Dan Charan S/o Shri Hukmi Dan Charan, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Tarla, Tehsil Serwa, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

6. Nitesh Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Kanawas Road, Balunda, District Pali, Rajasthan.

7. Nema Ram Solanki S/o Shri Gopa Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Doli, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

8. Ratan La Saini S/o Shri Lallu Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/ o Mithi Kothi, Vpo Mitrapura, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 306/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

(3 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdeesh, Aged About 35 Years, Vpo Kalsada, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

2. Hitesh Kumar S/o Foosaram, Aged About 28 Years, V/p Dakatra, Tehsil And District Jalore Rajasthan.

3. Arvind Kumar Solanki S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Village Ekorasi, Post Jatnangla, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

4. Ashok Kumar S/o Baloo Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Vpo Kalsara, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

5. Meva Ram S/o Kistur Das, Aged About 37 Years, Mukhatra, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

6. Kishor Singh Chadana S/o Sohan Singh Chadana, Aged About 26 Years, Village Tarot, Post Sakroda, Tehsil And District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.

7. Deepak Vyas S/o Dilip Kumar Vyas, Aged About 25 Years, Brahmpuri Ravta Road, Bilawas, Tehsil Sojat City, District Pali, Rajasthan.

8. Madan Lal S/o Kapoora Ram, Aged About 31 Years, 176, Meghwalo Ka Bas, Bangri, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 309/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Appellants
                                  Versus



                                         (4 of 15)                     [SAW-357/2021]

Sani Dan Charan S/o Dungar Ram Charan, Aged About 22 Years, Village Bogasani, Post Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 313/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Sharawan Singh S/o Shri Hakam Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Sarguwala, Post Ratrari, Tehsil Gadra Road, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

2. Manoj Vyas S/o Shri Om Prakash Vyas, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vyas Mohalla, Pisangan, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.

3. Santosh Kanwar D/o Shri Sumer Singh Rathore, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Gyatri Nagar, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.

4. Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Naga Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sutharo Ki Dhani, Sohada, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

5. Dhanraj Jakhar S/o Shri Kheta Ram Jakhar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Gandhi Nagar, Khadeen, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 319/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

----Appellants Versus

1. Rakesh Kumar S/o Champa Lal Pareek, Aged About 33

(5 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

Years, R/o Village And Post Pulasar, Ward No. 06, Unchawa Bas, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu.

2. Mohar Pal Meena S/o Shri Shravan Ram Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Villlage Budhpura, Post Dariba Project, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

3. Nitu Meena D/o Shri Gopi Ram Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Dola Ka Bas, Via Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, District Jodhpur.

4. Meha Ram S/o Pabu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Hamirana, Post Akla, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur.

5. Neeraj Kumar S/o Lok Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village And Post Nunia Gothra, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.

6. Mahipal S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Antroli Kalan, Post Antroli Khurd, Tehsil Degana, Distrit Nagaur.

7. Vikas Dhakar S/o Jagdish Prasad Dhakar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Plot No. 87, Shashtri Nagar, Tonk.

8. Saroj Maharya D/o Jagdish Prasad W/o Rajesh Baloda, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Ringus, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar.

9. Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dhani Gagoriyan, Village Cheethwari, Post Morija, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.

10. Lokendra Singh S/o Bhawain Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village And Post Sukhwasi, Tehsil And District Nagaur.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 324/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Veerma Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Ram Choudhary, Aged

(6 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

About 26 Years, R/o Village Kotda, Post Vediya, Tehsil Ahor, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

2. Laxmi D/o Shri Mitha Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Agewa Road, Fouji Circle, Bera Lunayat, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.

3. Bhagwana Ram S/o Shri Meva Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Post Jato Ki Basti, Gardiya, Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

4. Vikash Chand Meena S/o Shri Ranjeet Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Mitrapura, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.

5. Ladu Ram Dhaka S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dhako Ki Dhani, Post Pamana, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

6. Suman Sharma D/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Dhanoti Bari, Tehsil Rajgarh, Via Sidhmukh District Churu, Rajasthan.

7. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Heera Lal Vishnoi, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V/p Niwaj, Pachpadra City, District Barmer, Rajasthan.

8. Mukhtesh Prajapati D/o Shri Ramdayal Prajapati, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 24, Mahupura, Baswa Road, Bandikuni, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

9. Vaja Ram S/o Shri Kesha Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Dantiwas, Post Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

10. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Mundpuri, Kalan, Post Harsoli, Tehsil Govindgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

11. Ganesh Kumar Kalbi S/o Shri Ramaram Kalbi, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Jain Mandir Gali, Kojra, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

12. Anil Mehra S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Mehra, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Nagdev Mohalla, Main Road, Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Respondents
               D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 334/2021
1.    State   Of    Rajasthan,         Through         The      Secretary,     Rural
      Development          And         Panchayati            Raj      Department,



                                          (7 of 15)                     [SAW-357/2021]

Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Avadhesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Amara Ram Jangid, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Agewa, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.

2. Varsha Sen D/o Shri Satish Chandra Sen, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Math Mandir, Ojha Galia, Mandal , District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

3. Suresh S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Dhamana Ka Goliya, Post Dhamana, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.

4. Mahesh Kumar Gaur S/o Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Manch, Post Ata, Tehsil And District Karauli, Rajasthan.

5. Ramawatar S/o Shri Ramkaran Muwal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Dukiya, Post Bhanwal, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 358/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jharsar Kandhlan, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

2. Satveer S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Pandreutiba, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu,

(8 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

Rajasthan.

3. Ram Raj Meena S/o Shri Sunder Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Dhannaka Johpra, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

4. Satya Narayan Regar S/o Shri Ram Karan Regar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Ronua, Bundi, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

5. Brijesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Matadeen Swami, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Behind Govt. Primary School, Sevra, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

6. Arvind Kumar Gochar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Kodkya, Tehsil Keshorai Patan, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

7. Durga Shankar Meena S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Dhikla, Post Kanwra, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

8. Sukhdev Regar S/o Shri Nanu Ram Regar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Shanbhugarh, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG, Mr. Deepak Chandak, Mr. K.S. Lodha For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Jai Naveen, Mr. Mahaveer Bhamariya, Mr. M.S. Godara, Mr. Rajendra Prasad

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Judgment

22/11/2021

All these appeals have been filed by the State Government to

challenge the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned

Single Judge in suo moto proceedings in connection with Civil Writ

(9 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

Petition No.2094/2019 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar and other

connected writ petitions.

Brief facts are as under:

The State Government had conducted recruitment test for

selection to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Leval-II), for which the

advertisement was issued on 31.07.2018. At the end of the

selection process, large number of vacancies remained unfilled

even after operating the reserved list. The State Government

decided not to fill up the remaining vacancies. This decision of the

State was challenged by the aggrieved candidates by filing the

writ petitions. The learned Single Judge disposed of these writ

petitions by a common judgment dated 20.07.2020 and issued

following observations and directions:

"47. The embargo of operating the waiting list beyond six months doses not apply in the present case, for the reasons stated hereinabove. That apart, petitioners have approached the Court, even prior to issuance of the select list and reserve list dated 28.02.2019.

48. That apart, upon perusal of the additional affidavit dated 08.07.2020, this Court clearly finds that the seats are still lying vacant and the respondents have included them in the posts to be filled in Budget Year 2020-2021.

49. Admittedly, 2840 posts are lying vacant, pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018. The petitioners and other candidates who have taken part in the process, are awaiting fingers crossed in a hope and trust that remaining seats will be filled and at least 2840 of those in the waiting list will be accommodated. These candidates who could legitimately be appointed will have to wait for the next advertisement (which has not been issued for last 2 years) and by that time many of them would be over aged on the one hand and on the other hand, will have to compete with the fresh candidates who have become eligible after the last advertisement

- the candidate who are in waiting list will have to wait till eternity.

50. The irony is that on the one hand thousands of youths are waiting for employment and on the other,

(10 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

the schools in which the posts are lying vacant, are struggling to impart education. The ultimate sufferer are children - the future of this nation. Impugned action of the respondents have not only impaired the future of the present generation but has also retarded if not ruined the future of next generation.

51. As an upshot of discussions aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to fill the remaining post of each subject, while operating categorywise reserve list. It will be required of the respondents to ignore those candidates, who have already joined, pursuant to the advertisement in question and those who have not turned up either for documents verification or for joining.

52. Stay applications are also disposed of."

(highlighting supplied by us)

It appears that the State Government had decided to

implement the said judgment without challenging it. As a

consequence thereof, number of appointment orders were issued

to the candidates by operating list further call it reserve list or

further reserve list. At that stage, some of the candidates, namely,

Rakesh Godara and others filed a fresh Petition No.2039/2021 and

prayed, inter alia, for quashing the merit list drawn by the State

Government on 11.01.2021, from which the appointments to the

left over vacancies were being made. In response to the notice

issued by the High Court, the State Government appeared and

filed reply and clarified its stand with respect to drawing of fresh

reserve list and the modalities applied for such purpose.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.02.2021 passed

by the learned Single Judge would show that in the course of

hearing in the petition in the case of Rakesh Godara, the learned

Single Judge formed a prima facie opinion that the said judgment

dated 20.07.2020 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar and others needs

to be reviewed/reconsidered. The learned Single Judge observed

(11 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

that all connected petitions shall be placed before the Court for "to

be mentioned".

Before the learned Single Judge in such proceedings, the

opposition was made by the counsel for the parties that in

absence of selected candidates, the Court should not exercise suo

moto powers to review, particularly when the judgment under

consideration has been implemented. This objection was

overruled by the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:

"14. Learned counsel for the parties were mostly of the view that since the judgment given in the present bunch of writ petitions has been implemented, any endeavour to review or clarify the judgment would disturb the rights of the candidates, who have been selected and issued appointment orders. But, none of them could satisfy the Court that the direction contained in para-51, if read in isolation, is within the precincts of the controversy and otherwise in conformity with law." (emphases supplied is by us.)

Once again in paragraph 24 of the said judgment, the

question of exercising review powers without hearing the persons

likely to be affected was dealt with in the following manner:

"24. So far as providing of opportunity of hearing is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, no individual notice is required, as almost all counsel, who appeared in bunch of cases led by Kuldeep Kumar's case (supra), are present and rights of none of those petitioners are being adversely affected. The consequence of the clarification may perhaps, concern the candidates who have been selected and given appointment, but then, the appointment orders have been given in furtherance of implementation of the judgment dated 20.07.2020 in case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and these selection/ appointment are already in question, in the writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.2039/2021 (Rakesh Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and connected matters."

(12 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was of the

opinion that 2840 posts remained unfilled/vacant on account of

the following three reasons:

(i) non-joining of candidates in whose favour appointment

orders have been issued;

(ii) the candidates whose candidature has been rejected

during document verification and;

(iii) the candidates who did not turn up for document

verification at all.

With respect to categories other than non-joining of the

selected candidate, the learned Single Judge recorded that in the

judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), no specific

directions were issued in relation to the manner in which such

unfilled posts should be filled up and the observations and

directions of the Court to fill up the unfilled posts "while operating

the categorywise reserve list" was made for the purpose of filling

up the posts which fell vacant on account of non-joining of the

appointed candidates. Eventually, therefore, in the impugned

order, the learned Single Judge held and observed as under:

"30. It has come to my notice that despite knowing the correct legal position, the respondents have picked one line from para 51 of the judgment under consideration and have filled all the posts in practically 'default mode'; "while operating the categorywise reserve list", completely dehors the settled legal position. Even if, the direction is an obitor; justice and expediency demands, it be obliterated or at least clarified.

31. The law is well settled that category-wise reserve list is required to be operated in the event of posts falling vacant due to non-joining of already appointed candidates. So far as other posts remaining unfilled are concerned (on account of rejection of candidature during document verification and the candidates who did not turn up at the time of document verification), the recruiting agency is required to reshuffle the result

(13 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

by calling the candidates in order of merit, irrespective of their categories.

32. Be that as it may. Since the State has taken up a categoric stand that they have proceeded with the recruitment in accordance with the directions contained in Para No.51 of the judgment, 'while operating category-wise reserve list, in the opinion of this Court, this clarification is essential rather than being, imperative.

: CONCLUSION :

33. The order dated 20.07.2020 rendered in the present writ petition is hereby clarified in the manner that the stipulation "while operating category-wise reserve list" would be applicable only to the posts falling vacant on account of non-joining of the appointed candidates. Remaining posts, which have fallen vacant either on account of rejection of candidates or on account of the candidates not turning up for document verification shall be filled in accordance with law.

: DIRECTION :

34. Para No.29 above be read with judgment dated 20.07.2020 rendered in case of Kuldeep Kumar & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.2094/2019). A copy of the present order be placed in each of the writ petitions decided on 20.07.2020 and a note be appended at the end of the order dated 20.07.2020, giving reference of the order instant, indicating that the order has been clarified. Fresh order of 20.07.2020 with the Note be uploaded while off-loading the earlier order."

We have heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General

for the State and Mr. G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate for the

petitioner Rakesh Godara.

The petitioners Kuldeep Kumar and others in Civil Writ

Petition No.2094/2019 and other petitioners in the connected

petitions in which the learned Single Judge has passed the original

judgment dated 20.07.2020, we are informed, are duly served.

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, in

our view, the learned Single Judge could not have passed the

impugned order dated 25.02.2021. Though multiple issues

concerning the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge in

the recall or review order dated 25.02.2021 arise, we would be

(14 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

well advised not to elaborate these issues since the petition of

Rakesh Godara is pending before the learned Single Judge in

which these legal issues would and need to be decided. The

impugned order dated 25.02.2021, however, would have to be set

aside for the simple reason that the learned Single Judge had

exercised extraordinary power of suo moto review of his own

order without their being any substantive proceedings instituted

by any of the persons, who claimed to be aggrieved by the

implementation of the order by the Government. The petitioner

Rakesh Godara had challenged the select list drawn by the

Government on the basis of judgment of the learned Single Judge

dated 20.07.2020. It is still open to the learned Single Judge to

test the legality of the Government order in legal terms in such

proceedings having regard to the judgment in case of Kuldeep

Kumar and others. However, on the ground that the list drawn by

the Government was on account of some lack of clarity in the said

order dated 20.07.2020, which needed to be clarified or the

directions issued needed to be reviewed, the suo moto power to

recall or review without full hearing of all issues and all parties

concerned, ought not to have been exercised. We have

reproduced the relevant portion of the order of the learned Single

Judge in order to demonstrate that this objection of necessary

parties not being present before the Court was raised more than

once. This objection was rejected on the ground that none of the

counsel could satisfy the Court that the direction contained in para

51 of the judgment dated 20.07.2020, if read in isolation, is within

the precincts of the controversy and otherwise in conformity with

law. Whatever be the reasons and grounds for review or recall of

the earlier order, when it was pointed out by the counsel

(15 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]

appearing before the learned Single Judge that any such exercise

would result in adversely affecting several persons, who by now

have already been appointed, such persons or at least some of

them ought to have been heard before unsettling the position

arising out of the earlier judgment. Even otherwise, the question

as to how the vacancies remained unfilled on account of non-

joining of the selected candidates versus rejection of candidature

upon document verification/non-appearance of the candidates for

document verification, was not discussed in the original judgment.

This issue required full consideration and could not have been

decided by exercising suo moto powers of review without full

participation from all persons concerned. On these grounds, we

are inclined to reverse the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge. While so doing, it is further provided that

whatever the issues the petitioners Rakesh Godara and others

have raised in connection with the select list prepared by the State

Government in furtherance of the order dated 20.07.2020 passed

by the learned Single Judge, would be examined on the basis of

the materials on record in their pending petition/s.

With these observations and directions, the impugned order

is reversed. The appeals are disposed of. Connected applications

are also disposed of.

(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

54-MohitTak/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)