Rajasthan High Court
Asha Kumari Sharma D/O Amrit Lal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 30 March, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4880/2022
Asha Kumari Sharma D/o Amrit Lal Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, R/o
H.no. 5-C-15, R.c. Vyas Colony, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary Cum Commissioner,
Panchayati Raj, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Executive Officer-Cum-Additional Examination
Controller, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
30/03/2022
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's
candidature may also be considered as she has scored higher
marks than those candidates who have been appointed in terms of
the judgment passed by the Division Bench.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The judgment of Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)
No.908/2017, it has been held as under:
"Vide this order above mentioned appeals would be disposed
of as they involve common questions of law and fact.
Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the
appellants had participated in the selection process for Teacher
Grade-III (Level-I and II) in pursuance to the advertisement dated
24.02.2012. However, candidates who had scored less marks than
the appellants were selected. During the pendency of the writ
petition filed by the appellants, the results were revised account of
revision of answer keys. Consequently, the candidates who were
lower in merit than the appellants could not make in the selection
(2 of 5) [CW-4880/2022]
process on account of revised result. However, the said candidates
were retained in service by the respondents in view of the
directions given by this Court vide order dated 18.11.2014 in
Ramdhan Kumawat V/s State of Rajasthan & another. The said
decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division
Bench. Learned counsel for the appellants have further submitted
that a similar controversy arose before this Court in D.B. Special
Appeal(Writ) No.1178/2017 titled as Rajesh Choudhary and others
Versus State of Rajasthan and another along with other connected
appeals and vide order dated 03.11.2017, it was ordered that the
unfilled posts be treated as vacant posts and the same be filled up
in view of various directions issued in judicial verdicts reproduced
and considered in the said order. Learned counsel has submitted
that the similar directions be issued in this case as were issued
vide order dated 03.11.2017.
Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the
appeals.
Facts in the present case are not in dispute. Similar
controversy involved in the present case had arisen before this
Court in D. B. Special Appeal(Writ)No.1178/2017 and other
connected appeals. The said appeals were disposed of vide order
dated 03.11.2017 and the same has been placed on record as
Annexure-9 along with the rejoinder filed by the appellants.
The relevant part of the order dated 03.11.2017 reads as
under:-
"9) Orders impugned in the instant appeals have been
passed by the learned Single Judge in light of the decision dated
12/04/2017 directing that for the year 2011 only 1478 notified
vacancies have to be filled up and that the respondents would
(3 of 5) [CW-4880/2022]
carry out an exercise to determine as to how many candidates
offered appointment pursuant to the first merit list prepared had
accepted and joined. Said candidates would not be disturbed.
Their appointments would continue. Apart from 62 vacancies out
of 1478 for which no letters offering appointment were issued,
such additional vacancies which would be available on account of
either candidate not accepting letter of offer or having accepted
letter of offer had left service would be filled up.
10) Learned counsel for the appellants could not show any
material to us as to the exact number of vacancies available out of
1478 which were notified for the year 2011 which remain to be
filled up. Similarly, learned counsel for the respondents could also
not throw any light on said aspect.
11) As regards the issue raised by the appellants that people
lower in merit than them in the revised merit list have been
retained in service and thereby a vested right in the appellants
who are higher in merit in the second select list, has been violated
is concerned, in view of the decision in Umesh Singhal's case
which is based on decision of the Supreme Court, the argument is
rejected. Thus, of the 1478 notified vacancies such number have
been occupied by candidates as per the merit position in the first
select list notified on 21/07/2012 is concerned, the same cannot
be upset. Such vacancies for said year which remain unfilled as of
today, be it because of letters offering appointment not issued to
all selected candidates when the merit list was prepared or on
account of some of the candidates not accepting letter offering
appointment or some having joined and resigned thereafter would
require to be filled up in view of the various directions issued in
judicial verdicts and as noted hereinabove.
(4 of 5) [CW-4880/2022]
12. Declaring as above, we dispose of the appeals directing
the respondents to workout how many posts out of 1478 notified
for the year 2011 remain unfilled as of today and by unfilled we
mean those posts for which candidates who were offered
appointment did not join or after joining resigned or left service.
All of them would be treated as vacant posts. The exercise shall be
completed within six weeks from today. Thereafter, the mandamus
issued by the learned Single Judge in Umesh Singhal's case shall
be complied with."
It was held by the learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.311/2014 titled as Umesh Singhal Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Others and other connected matters decided on
05.03.2014 as under:-
"Having regard to the ratio of aforesaid judgment in Rajesh
Kumar, supra the writ petition is disposed of directing respondent
university to get the objections raised by the petitioners examined
from experts, on receipt of the report, within one month from the
date copy of this order is produced before them and forward the
revised merit list to the State. The State Government on the basis
of such revised list, shall offer appointment to such candidates,
who newly figure in the merit list within the advertised number of
posts i.e. 1478. The candidates already appointed against the
vacant posts, may be continued in service by placing them below
the candidates who are now in the revised merit placed higher
than them in merit. The appointment of newly figure candidates in
the merit shall relate back to the date when the appointments of
the candidates was made on the basis of originally prepared merit
list."
(5 of 5) [CW-4880/2022]
Since, the question involved in the present appeals is similar
to the one dealt by this Court vide order dated 03.11.2017, we are
of the considered opinion that the present appeals are liable to be
disposed of in terms of the decision of this Court dated
03.11.2017. It has been pointed out during the course of
arguments that the order dated 03.11.2017 has been duly
complied by the State/respondents.
Accordingly, these appeals as well as all the applications
moved by the intervenors stand disposed of directing the
respondents to work out as to how many posts out of 41000
notified for the year 2012 recruitment remain unfilled as of today
on account of the fact that the candidates who were offered
appointment did not join or after joining resigned or left the
service and all of them would be treated as vacant posts.
Thereafter, the mandamus issued by the learned Single Judge in
Umesh Singhal's case shall be complied with. The entire exercise
shall be completed within eight weeks from today by the
respondents. "
In view of the judgment (supra) passed by the Division
Bench, it is apparent that fresh writ petitions in relation to the
same prayer which already stood decided by the Division Bench
would not lie.
The present writ petition is wholly frivolous and the same is
accordingly dismissed. Further, it is observed that the judgment
passed by the Division Bench will apply to all the candidates.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
JYOTI /109
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
