Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State Of Rajasthan vs Sanjay Chaudhary on 2 February, 2022

Bench: Akil Kureshi, Madan Gopal Vyas

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 330/2021

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. Sanjay Chaudhary S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Jato Ka Mohala, Sangathiya, Post Lalaniya, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

2. Arvind Singh Rathaur S/o Shri Ambika Singh Rathaur, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 10, A Block, Jagnnathpuri Li, Triveni Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Rakesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Arjun Lal Gurjar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Bagwara, Via Morija, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

4. Girish Shrimali S/o Shri Keshav Lal Shrimali, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Bhutala, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

5. Pankaj Upreti S/o Shri Ishwari Datt Upreti, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 65/293, Heerapath, Mansarover, Jaipur , Rajasthan.

6. Sukh Ram S/o Shri Hardat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kinkrali, Post Sonari, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

7. Umesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Bhajan Lal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Kumher Gate, Tehsil And District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

8. Nirmal Kumar Jangir S/o Shri Prahlad Rai, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kathawala, Post Yarlipura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

9. Harish Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Satyun, Post Satyun, Tehsil Taranagar,

(2 of 5) [SAW-330/2021]

District Churu, Rajasthan.

10. Bhishan Lal S/o Shri Ram Chandra Swami, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Satyun, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.

11. Kishor Kumar S/o Shri Dhara Rami, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chhabo Kas Bas, Falka, Tehsil Jeitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.

12. Jagdish Meena S/o Shri Sundar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Dei, Tehsil Nainwan, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

13. Kamlesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Shyampura, Via Maid, Post Palari, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

14. Kallu Ram Mahawar S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Mahawar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bada Bas Khedli, Darwaja, V/p Bhandarej, Tehsil And District Dausa, Rajasthan.

15. Chanchal Saini D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Saini, Aged About 32 Years, R/o New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

16. Usha Kumari D/o Shri Dai Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Bhojasar, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

17. Padma Thakral D/o Shri Govind Ram Sachdev, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Kamla Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

18. Sarita Kumari Kumawat D/o Shri Kedar Prasad Kumawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bhagat Singh Colony, Newai, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk, Rajasthan.

19. Dhanesh Chand Jatav S/o Shri Dhani Ram Jatav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Mahawa, Tehsil Mahawa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.

20. Sita Ram Kumhar S/o Shri Ram Lal Kumhar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Surdhana Chouhanan, Tehsil And District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

21. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Ramdev Gaina, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bhangiwad, Post Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

22. Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Dashrath Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Santruk, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

(3 of 5) [SAW-330/2021]

23. Mahender Singh S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Santpura, Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

24. Bhola Shankar Nagar S/o Shri Nem Chand Nagar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Gothara, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan.

25. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Gugan Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Kharsandi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

26. Mula Ram Nitharwal S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Nitharwal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kakot, Post Prempura, Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

27. Navin Bijarania S/o Shri Gopal Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Rajiyasar Meetha, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.

28. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Munshi Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Dholpaliya, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

29. Harish Kumar S/o Shri Barkhandi Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Jaicholi, Par, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                   ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)           :     Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG assisted by
through V.C.                     Mr. Rishi Soni
For Respondent(s)          :     None

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

Order

02/02/2022

This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single

Judge dated 25.02.2021 concerning a batch of writ petitions. One

of the appeal arising out of the same being State of Rajasthan

and Another Vs. Suresh Kumar Jat and others (Spl. Appl.

(4 of 5) [SAW-330/2021]

Writ No. 357/2021 dated 22.11.2021) was decided in the

following manner:-

"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 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 para51 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 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-

                                                                             (5 of 5)               [SAW-330/2021]


                                         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 other shave 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.