Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Praveen Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 March, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12909/2021

1. Krishan Pal Singh S/o Sumer Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/ o 183 Baldev Nagar, Mata Ka Than, Magra Punjala, Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Girish Kumar Dave S/o Ramesh Chandra Sharma, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Opposite Alok School, Bhinmal, District Jalore (Raj.).

3. Anshu Arora S/o Ganesh Rai Chugh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o House No. 213, Sector-6 Near Chuna Fatak, Hanumangarh Junction, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Sanskrit Education Of Rajasthan, Second Floor, Block No. 6 Siksha Sankul J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13167/2021

1. Ranveer Vishnoi S/o Shri Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Dhawa, Post Dhawa, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

2. Bhoori Choudhary D/o Sita Ram Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Shrikisanpur Teetariya, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.).

3. Mahendra Kumar Jat S/o Bodu Ram Jat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Shri Govindpura, Post Bilonchi Vaya Morija, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.).

4. Rajendra Kumar Nagar S/o Shri Badri Lal Nagar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Chhota Bazar, Balariya Darwaja, Village Post Chautha Barwara, District Sawaimadhopur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director, Sanskrit Education Of Rajasthan, Second Floor, Block No. 6 Siksha Sankul J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13249/2021

(2 of 9) [CW-12909/2021]

1. Mahendra Kumar Paliwal S/o Himmat Kuamr Paliwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Plot No. 60, Vyas Colony Pokaran, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Raj.)

2. Achu Sharma D/o Gopal Lal Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Baga Ka Bas, Post Alisar, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Subham Malav S/o Cheetar Lal Malav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Post Sarola Kalan, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Director Sanskrit Education Of Rajasthan, Second Floor, Block No. 6 Siksha Sankul J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13801/2021 Praveen Kumar S/o Vardha Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Bagoli, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director Sanskrit Education Of Rajasthan, Second Floor, Block No. 6 Siksha Sankul J.l.n. Marg, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Gaur, AAG, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG, Mr. Utkarsh Singh, Mr. Vinit Sanadhya for Mr. Mahesh Thanvi & Ms. Ashalini audichiya.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 02/03/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

seeking a direction to the respondents to fill up the advertised

vacant posts of Senior Teacher from the candidates found

(3 of 9) [CW-12909/2021]

provisionally selected by the select list and offer appointment to

them pursuant to the advertisement dated 29.3.2018 and accord

appointment to the petitioners on the post of Senior Teacher with

all consequential benefits pursuant to the advertisement dated

29.3.2018.

Advertisement dated 29.3.2018 was issued by the Rajasthan

Public Service Commission ('RPSC') for filling up the posts of

Teachers under the Rajasthan Sanskrit Education State and

Subordinate Service (School Branch) Rules, 2015 ('the Rules') for

various subjects. Corrigendum dated 16.8.2019 was issued on

account of according reservation to MBC. After examination was

held, provisional list of candidates for eligibility checking was

published to the extent of two times of vacancies in each subject.

After candidates were called for document verification, by

way of counselling, main list of the selected candidates was issued

for all categories except Ex-serviceman as the same was withheld

under the orders of the Court.

Simultaneously, reserve list in terms of provisions of the

Rules was also issued to the extent of 50% of vacancies

advertised in each subject. Based on the main list and the

recommendation made by the RPSC, the State issued appointment

orders to the candidates. As all the candidates, did not join

pursuant to the orders of appointment, the Department

communicated the same to the RPSC and sought further

recommendation from the reserve list.

The RPSC sent the merit list (pick-up against non joinder) to

the Department, based on which, again orders of appointment

were issued to the candidates from the reserve list. When even

from the candidates appointed from the reserve list, again only

(4 of 9) [CW-12909/2021]

few candidates joined, the Department again sought further

recommendations from the reserve list. Even in the category of

Ex-serviceman, whose result was declared, out of 11 candidates in

English main list, who were offered appointment, one joined.

It is inter alia claimed that though the Department has

sought names of the candidates from the reserve list, the RPSC

for no apparent reason has failed to recommend the names of the

candidates including the petitioners, from the select list despite

the fact that large number of vacancies are available.

Submissions have been made that action of the respondents

in not sending the recommendation despite requisition from the

Department, is not justified and, therefore, the relief as indicated

has been claimed.

On notices being issued, the State filed its reply inter alia

indicating that the Department has done its best and intend to fill

up all the advertised posts and has communicated many times

with the RPSC for filling up the advertised posts as per Rules and

procedure established by law, however, for lack of

recommendation, the said exercise could not be done, therefore,

the petitions are liable to be dismissed.

On the part of RPSC, no reply was filed. However, on

15.12.2021, it was submitted that despite repeated

communications with the Department of Personnel, permission to

send the names, has not been received.

As the Department of Personnel was not party to the

petition, Mr. Sunil Beniwal, learned AAG was directed to put in

appearance and complete his instructions in the matter.

Learned AAG has filed an affidavit on behalf of the

Department of Personnel inter alia indicating that though the

(5 of 9) [CW-12909/2021]

period for operating the reserve list is six months from the date,

on which the original list if forwarded, even after excluding the

period of lock-down as the said period has lapsed, no proceedings

could be initiated in furtherance to the communication made by

the RPSC and has placed on record a communication dated

27.10.2021 sent by the Department of Personnel to RPSC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement

submissions that when large number of advertised vacancies are

available, the Department is seeking recommendation from the

RPSC, however, RPSC has failed to recommend the names for no

apparent reason and now the Department of Personnel has relying

on the provisions of Rules, which provides for reserve list to

expire, has denied permission, which is not justified.

Submissions were made with reference to notification issued

by the Department of Personnel on 14.10.2021 to indicate that

specific timelines have been prescribed, which should have been

followed by the Department and that by another Circular dated

13.1.2016, it has been clarified that the period of six months shall

be considered from the last part of the recommendation made by

the RPSC and as such, non-recommendation on part of the RPSC

is not justified.

Learned AAG appearing for Director Sanskrit Education made

submissions that this Court in State of Rajasthan v. Gajendra

Upadhayay: D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.87/2021, decided on

27.1.2022 has laid down that once the period of six months have

passed, the recruiting authority cannot be directed to invite the

candidates beyond the reserve list because the selection process

has to be given a finality at some point of time and, therefore, the

petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

(6 of 9) [CW-12909/2021]

Learned AAG appearing for the Department of Personnel

submitted that as the period as prescribed under the Rules has

expired long back, the relief as claimed by the petitioners is not

available.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The relevant facts in all the petitions, which pertain to

different subjects may be summarized as under:-

Writ Subject Advertised Select-List Select List Candidates Pick- Vacant Petition posts ---------------------- Dated did not join up List Posts Main │ Reserved 12909/21 English 84 86 42 21.5.2020 60 39 24 13167/21 Sanskrit 191 188 93 22.5.2020 89 77 4 13249/21 Maths 135 123 66 28.5.2020 85 67 33 13801/21 Science 96 85 42 26.5.2020 61 48 20

The relevant provision dealing with the above aspect is Rule

26 of the Rules, which reads as under:-

"26. Recommendations of the Commission or the Appointing Authority:- The Commission or Appointing Authority, as the case may be, shall prepare a list of candidates whom they consider suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in the order of merit on the basis of marks obtained in the examination and forward the same to the Appointing Authority.

Provided that the Commission or Appointing Authority may, to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list and the names of such candidates may, on the requisition, be recommended in the order of merit, to the Government within 6 months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government."

(7 of 9) [CW-12909/2021]

In the present cases, the original recommendations were

made on 21.5.2020, 22.5.2020, 28.5.2020 and on 26.5.2020,

respectively. Even if the time as prescribed in the Rule after

providing for six months of lock-down during the said period, is

calculated, the period as per the proviso had expired on

20.5.2021, 21.5.2021, 27.5.2021 and on 25.5.2021, respectively.

The submissions made based on the Circular dated

13.1.2016 that period of six months has to be calculated from the

last recommendation made i.e. after the RPSC recommended the

names from the revised list is baseless.

The Circular reads as under:-

"jkT; ljdkj ds /;ku esa yk;k x;k gS fd vk;ksx }kjk p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ewy lwph ,d gh ckj esa iw.kZ :i ls Hkstk tkuk O;kogkfjd :i ls laHko ugha gks ikrk gSA vH;fFkZ;ksa ds vkosnu i=ksa dh ik=rk tkap ,oa "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rkvksa] lR;kiu vkfn esa] vusd ekeyksa esa u pkgrs gq, Hkh] dkQh le; yx tkrk gSA dqN izdj.kksa esa gksus okys foyac ds fy, leLr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lwph dks jksds j[kuk Hkh mfpr ugha gksrk gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa eq[; p;u lwph ¼vfHkLrkouk½ ,d ckj esa u Hksth tkdj ,dkf/kd VqdM+ksa esa izsf'kr dh tkrh gSA ftlls ;g nqfo/kk mRiUu gks tkrh gS fd Åij n"kkZ, x, izko/kkukuqlkj izrh{kk lwph dh izorZuh;rk ds 6 ekg dh vof/k dh x.kuk fdl vfHkLrkouk frfFk ls dh tkosA bl Øe esa vk;ksx ls izkIr izLrko ,oa jkT; ,oa ns"k dh mPp vnkyrks ls izkIr fu.kZ;ksa dk vuq"khyu dj] jkT; ljdkj }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ifji= fnukad 19-07- 2001 esa ewy vfHkLrkouk frfFk ls 6 ekg dh x.kuk dk tks izko/kku gS] ml vof/k dh x.kuk vk;ksx vFkok vU; ,tsalh }kjk izsf'kr dh tkus okyh ¼ewy½ vfHkLrkouk lwph ds vafre Hkkx dks izsf'kr djus dh fnukad ls dh tkosxhA"

A perusal of the above would reveal that the last date of the

recommendation referred to as in cases where original

(8 of 9) [CW-12909/2021]

recommendation itself is made in parts and not the revised

recommendation as claimed.

Further, it would be seen that the names of the petitioners

have not appeared either in the main list or the reserve list and

they have filed the petitions based on the fact that they were

called for document verification, wherein, the respondents had

called two times candidates of the number of vacancies.

The Division Bench in the case of Gajendra Upadhyay (supra)

after taking into consideration various Circulars etc, wherein, the

learned Single Judge had ordered for operating the select list till

all the seats were filled up, came to the following conclusion:-

"8. In wake of the discussion made herein above, we are of the view that the appellants have issued the main select list and the reserve list strictly in accordance with the rules of selection and that the recruitment process does not suffer from any illegality whatsoever. The directions given by the learned Single Bench in the impugned orders would completely jeopardize the process of selection and it would virtually become impossible to apply the mandatory reservations against the seats in the order of merit. Needless to say that once the period of six months has passed, the recruitment authority cannot be directed to invite the candidates beyond the reserve list because the selection process has to be given a finality at some point of time. The criterion of six months has been prescribed in the Circular dated 13.01.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Government of Rajasthan and the same is absolutely rational and cannot be made subject matter of judicial review. The candidates, who have not been selected, would have the opportunity of applying in the upcoming recruitment processes because the remaining vacant seats would be accounted for therein."

(emphasis supplied)

(9 of 9) [CW-12909/2021]

A perusal of the above judgment would reveal that the

Division Bench has categorically held that the recruiting authority

cannot be directed to invite candidates beyond the reserve list.

Admittedly, the names of the petitioners did not figure even

in the reserve list and in that view of the matter, the issue raised

in the present petitions being no more res integra, the petitioners

are not entitled to any relief.