Dala Ram Bhati vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 660 Raj

(1 of 4) [SAW-128/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 128/2021

1. Dala Ram Bhati S/o Shri Java Ram Bhati, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Post Sekhala, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur At Present R/o 374, Unton Ki Ghati, Near Paani Ki Tanki, Soorsagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

2. Anita Parihar D/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Sain, R/o Roshni Bhadu Street, Ward No. 8, Hanuman Nagar, 5E Chhoti, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.

3. Nirmal Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 37 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Bhutton Ka Chowraha, Behind Maa Suraj Complex, Purani Ginani, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. Jitendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Prem Singh Rathore, Aged About 36 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Thelasar House, Jaipur Road, In Front Of Sofia School, Tilak Nagar, Bikaner ,rajasthan.

5. Maga Ram Kumhar S/o Shri Durga Ram Kumhar, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o Village Post Dehtara, Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

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

2. The Project Director (LPs And SHGs) Cum Deputy Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. State Mission Director, Rajasthan Gramin Ajeevika Vikas Parishad (RGAVP) , 3Rd Floor, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

                                                                 ----Respondents



For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Manish Patel
through V.C.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
through V.C.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

(2 of 4) [SAW-128/2021]

Judgment

12/01/2022

This appeal arises out of impugned judgment dated

08.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. The State

Government had initiated steps for engaging Project Managers and

Cluster Level Managers on contractual basis for a fixed term,

which could be extended. After selection process was completed,

offers of appointment were also issued to the selected candidates

including the petitioner. However, before the candidates could

report for duty and assume charge, the entire selection process

was cancelled. This prompted the petitioner to challenge the

action of the authorities. The learned Single Judge noticed that on

enormous complaints, the Additional Secretary had set up enquiry

and called for reports. The reports dated 12.09.2019 and

11.11.2019 do not indicate any major infirmity in the selection

process. However, the Additional Chief Secretary made his note on

22.11.2019, in which he noticed several loopholes and infirmities

in the selection process, such as some of the candidates had not

written the roll numbers at correct places in the OMR sheets,

some of the OMR sheets were not assessed because the sheets

were not properly protected by the invigilators and results of these

candidates were not declared. There was a difference in the time

of examination as per the entrance card and as published in the

question paper which would have a possibility of some of the

candidates not being able to complete the answers and such other

defects. Based on these notes, he decided to cancel the entire

selection process.

(3 of 4) [SAW-128/2021]

The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that such

selection could be cancelled if it is shown to be defective or

suffering from major infirmity. Resultantly, the present writ

petition and other connected writ petitions were dismissed. In the

process, the learned Single Judge also referred to the decisions of

Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Hasia and others Vs.

Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others [(1981) 1 SCC 722] and

Bishnu Biswas and others Vs. Union of India and others

[(2014) 5 SCC 774] and observed that as per the said decisions,

the allocation of marks for oral interviews should not exceed 15%

whereas in the present case 80 marks were for written test and 20

marks were for oral interviews. Hence, the selection process was

vitiated.

We are in agreement with the final decision of the learned

Single Judge. The record would suggest that the Additional

Secretary had noticed several defects which could distort the

selection process and ultimate result of the examination

conducted. The learned Single Judge noticed that the selection

had to be made on the basis of written test, oral interview and

group discussion, whereas there was no evidence of group

discussions being conducted.

Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere.

Since the learned Single Judge has not upheld the decision of the

Government to recall the selections only on the ground that more

than 15% marks have been allotted for oral interviews, our

dismissal of this appeal should not be seen as confirmation of the

view of the learned Single Judge on this count.

(4 of 4) [SAW-128/2021]

With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.

                                   (REKHA BORANA),J                                        (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
                                   31-jayesh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)