Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Mahesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan on 23 March, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 604/2021

1. Ram Nivas S/o Kishana Ram, aged about 31 Years, R/o Village Udav Nagar Rad Ka Bera, Post Padiyal, Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

2. Mahesh Kumar S/o Gopal Ram, aged about 24 Years, R/o VPO Bathoth, Via Patoda, District Sikar (Raj.) )

3. Narayan Ram Beniwal S/o Har Sukh Ram, aged about 29 Years, R/o Village Barangaon, Post Barangaon, District Nagaur (Raj.)

4. Bhajan Lal S/o Sona Ram, aged about 26 Years, R/o Village Badha, Post Gangasara, District Barmer (Raj.)

5. Rajendar Choudhary S/o Goda Ram, aged about 32 Years, R/o Jato Ka Bass, Village Lunsara, District Nagaur. (Raj.)

6. Ram Kanwari S/o Shatan Ram, aged about 26 Years, R/o VPO Khajwana, Tehsil Mundwa, District Nagaur (Raj.)

7. Murari Lal Saini S/o Nand Lal Saini, aged about 31 Years, R/o Ramgarh Pachwara, Dausa, District Dausa (Raj.)

8. Om Prakash S/o Bhaira Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/o Sadar Thane Ke Piche Jat Colony, Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.)

9. Sunil Kumar S/o Bhageerath Ram, aged about 31 Years, R/o VP Bhanwar, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer (Raj.)

10. Mukesh Kumar Mali S/o Ghasi Lal Mali, aged about 31 Years, R/o Dhodhupura Wali, Ward No.06, Ugharmal Baliji Mirjapur, Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

11. Hanuman Ram S/o Pema Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o Village Khed, Post Tilwara, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)

12. Hanuman Ram S/o Poona Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o Lorti Haight, Undkha, Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.)

13. Mool Singh S/o Manohar Singh, aged about 27 Years, R/o Daulatpura, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.)

14. Pooja Yadav D/o Mani Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/o Ward No.21, Jogiwala, Hanumangarh, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

(2 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

15. Karam Pal S/o Chhoga Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o VPO Bhalani, Tehsil Bagoda, Jalore, District Jalore (Raj.)

16. Birma Ram Jandu S/o Rugha Ram, aged about 29 Years, R/o Village Beeramsar, Post Rohini, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.)

17. Sunil Kumar S/o Banwari Lal Jyani, aged about 31 Years, R/o Ward No.11,VPO Phephana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

18. Mahaveer Prasad S/o Ram Kumar, aged about 28 Years, R/o Chak 2 KWM, 61 Head, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Raj.)

19. Jitendra Rao S/o Narendra Singh, aged about 26 Years, R/ o VPO Binchawa, Tehsil Deedwana, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.)

20. Shivraj Suwalka S/o Satya Narayan Suwalka, aged about 31 Years, R/o Village Dabardumaba, Tehsil Thodaraisaing, Tonk, District Tonk (Raj.)

21. Balkar Singh S/o Mangal Singh, aged about 29 Years, R/o Ward No.5, 6 Lpm, Post Mokamawala, 8 Lpm-A, Raisinghnagar, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

22. Ratan Lal S/o Chutara Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o Kanvo Ki Dhani, Indo Ki Dhani Second, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

23. Parul Choudhary D/o Purana Ram W/o Shiv Ram, aged about 29 Years, R/o Village Indapura, Post Pawa, Tehsil Didwana, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.)

24. Manphool Swami S/o Madan Lal Swami, aged about 31 Years, R/o VPO Seowa, Village Rajgarh, Churu, District Churu (Raj.)

25. Kailash Narayan Saharan S/o Fusa Ram, aged about 32 Years, R/o VPO Bapeu, Tehsil Sri Dungargarh, Bikaner District Bikaner (Raj.)

26. Mahadev Ram S/o Ladhu Ram, aged about 31 Years, R/o Kanvo Ki Beri, Rohila East, Tehsil Dhorimanna, Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.)

27. Ashok Kumar S/o Surta Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o Village Post Salaria, Tehsil Sedwa, Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.)

(3 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

28. Kanwara Ram Choudhary S/o Chutra Ram, aged about 30 Years, R/o Kadwasara Ki Dhani, Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.)

29. Rameshwar Lal Rawat S/o Malla Singh, aged about 30 Years, R/o Devgarh, Riyan Bari, Thanwala, Nagaur, District Nagaur (Raj.)

30. Mahesh Kumar S/o Chhote Lal, aged about 37 Years, R/o Village Savita Nagar, Pahari, Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.)

31. Naresh Singh S/o Gangadhar Singh, aged about 30 Years, R/o Dudi Nagar, Bhurki, Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

32. Bhawani Shankar S/o Har Lal Singh, aged about 35 Years, R/o Village Kurli, Tehsil and District Sikar (Raj.)

33. Ashok Vishnoi S/o Ghewar Ram, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Guda Vishnoiyan, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

34. Ramesh Kumar S/o Ram Lal Saini, aged about 29 Years, R/o Village Dhani Mohan Wali, Tehsil Sri Madhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through The Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary) Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

4. Sohan Lal Bhagora S/o Shri Navala Bhagora, aged about 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 10, Kharcha Pada, Samriya Samaria, Banswara, Rajasthan 327604

5. Anita Kumari Katara D/o Shri Teja Katara, aged about 35 Years, R/o Chikli Badra, Post Chikli Teja, Banswara, Rajasthan.

6. Krishna Charpota W/o Shri Lal Shankar Charpota, aged about 35 Years, R/o Mukam Ganau, Post Jhupale, Tehsil and District Banswara, Rajasthan.

(4 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

7. Maya Pargi D/o Shri Bal Krishan Parti, aged about 30 Years, R/o Sundrao, Banswara, Bagidora, Rajasthan 327031

8. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Om Prakash Sharma, aged about 36 years, R/o Ward No.5, 16 DPN, Hanumangarh, Ramgarh, Rajasthan 335504.

9. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Ranvir Singh, ageda bout 38 years, R/o VPO Parlika, 20 NTR, Farlika, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan 335504

10. Deepali Jain D/o Vinay Kumar Jain, aged about 28 years, R/o L- 69, Vijay Vihar Phase-2, Chuna Bhati Road, Rohini Sector-4, Vijay Vihar Raja Pur Kalan, Rohini Sector 7 Narela, north West Delhi, Delhi.

11. Smiriti Gautam D/o Shri Ram Kumar Gautam, aged about 29 years, R/o 9 Behind B.D.R Floor Mill, Nishat Bagh, Ambala Cantt. Ambala, Haryana 133001.

12. Monika Kumari Sharma D/o Kamlesh Sharma, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Ramgarh Murara, Post Khera Ward Rambarh, Gngapur City, Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan 322201

13. Krishna Awatar Sharma S/o Shri Ram Awatar Sharma, aged about 31 years, R/o Pratap Colony, Somnath Nagar, Dausa, Rajasthan.

14. Satish Kumar S/o Shri Harchand Singh, aged about 39 years, R/o Near Raha Swami Satsangh Ghar, Lohgarh (273), Sirsa, Haryana 125140

15. Pooja yadav W/o Shri Rajbir Singh Yadav, aged about 29 years, R/o 7/170, R.H.B. Colony, Bhiwadi, Alwar, Rajasthan 301019

16. Neeru Vohra D/o Shri Surendra Kumar Vohra, aged about 42 years, R/o 1/327, Housing Board, Jawahar, Ganganagar, Rajasthan

17. Mandeep S/o Bhag Singh, aged about 27 years, R/o Dhani Thoba, Fatehabad, Haryana.

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 628/2021

1. Anil Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, aged about 25 Years, R/o Village Kumpaliya, Tehsil Gida, District District Barmer (Raj.).

(5 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

2. Devendra Kumar S/o Shri Balu Singh, aged about 26 Years, R/o Village Bheemda Kawas, Tehsil Baytu, District Barmer (Raj.)

3. Gharsi Ram, aged about 24 Years, R/o Village Ratusar, Tehsil Sardar Sahar District Churu (Raj.)

4. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Karmi Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Saranu, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore (Raj.)

5. Sushma Garg W/o Shri Sanjay Garg, aged about 27 Years, R/o Hanuman Bag Colony, District Nagaur, (Raj.)

6. Durga Ram S/o Shri Heera Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/o Ugrash Khara, Tehsil Phalodi, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

7. Richhpal S/o Shri Gordhan Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/ o Village Ganguwala, Sikhan Post Tamkot Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)

8. Bhera Ram S/o Shri Gaji Ram, aged about 34 Years, R/o Chouhtan, Barmer, District Barmer (Raj.)

9. Seema Dhobi W/o Shri Prakash Chand, aged about 26 Years, R/o Railmagara, Tehsil Railmagara, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

10. Usha D/o Shri Banshi Lal, aged about 27 Years, R/o Govt, Iti South Side, District Nagaur (Raj.)

11. Sweta D/o Shri Satish, aged about 31 Years, R/o Ghoomchakar Khedli Fatak Kota, District Kota (Raj.)

12. Mahesh Kumar S/o Amarchand, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Post Mai Tehsil Nadbai District Bharatpur

13. Rajendra Bairava S/o Ramkhiladi, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Post Dantasuti Tehsil Bamanwas District Swaimadhopur.

14. Pawan Verma S/o Ram Ji Lal Verma, aged about 30 Years, R/o Ambedkar Circle Sirji Colony Niwai District Tonk

15. Kiran Kumari D/o Rameshwar Lal Raigar, aged about 26 Years, R/o Todi Sagar Malpura District Tonk

16. Shankar Lal Verma S/o Ramvilas Verma, aged about 34 Years, R/o Mohala Raigaran Pipali District Tonk

17. Parvesh Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar, aged about 27 Years, R/o Dadabadi Kota District Kota

18. Vinod Kumar Balai S/o Bodu Ram Balai, aged about 31 Years, R/o Surya Chowk Chairana, Nawalganj District Jhunjhunu.

(6 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

19. Bhawani Shankar Raigar S/o Ramswaroop Raigar, aged about 31 Years, R/o Bhimrao Ambedkar Colony, Nainwa District Bundi.

20. Krishna Kalawat S/o Moolchand Kalawat, aged about 32 Years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Mandara Tehsil Udaipur Vati District Jhunjhunu.

21. Rekha Verma D/o Bannalal Verma, aged about 33 Years, R/o VPO Ghar Tehsil Dooni District Tonk

22. Ramesh Bairava S/o Suwalal Bairava, aged about 33 Years, R/o Village Post Chhan Tehsil and District Tonk

23. Hemraj Balai S/o Devi Lal Balai, aged about 32 Years, R/o Nayagaon Guriyaran Tehsil Malpura District Tonk

24. Brajmohan S/o Bhagiram, aged about 26 Years, R/o andwapurani Jhoriya Post Pakka Pura Tehsil Rajakheda, District Dholpur

25. Surendra Bairawa S/o Devi Lal, aged about 29 Years, R/o Khatoli District Kota

26. Chandra Prakash Bairawa S/o Banshilal, aged about 27 Years, R/o Bairawa Mohala Via/ Tehsil Aryan District Ajmer

27. Chandra Prakash S/o Bheru Lal, aged about 26 Years, R/o Awan Tehsil Kanwas District Kota

28. Rekha Sisodiya D/o Satyanarayan, aged about 26 Years, R/o Khariya Mithapura Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.

29. Pankaj Kumar S/o Prataparam, aged about 26 Years, R/o Panchodi Kalan Sojat District Pali.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary) Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

----Respondents

(7 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1519/2021 Anjita Kumari D/o Shri Jagdev Singh, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Dungarsinghpura, Post Mundriabara, District Hanumangarh.

----Petitioner Versus

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.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1648/2021

1. Sawai Solanki S/o Shri Likhma Ram Solanki, aged about 26 Years, R/o Railway Colony, Mokalsar, District Barmer, (Rajasthan).

2. Laxmi Dhobi D/o Shri Gopal Dhobi, aged about 26 Years, R/o 4-E-2 New Housing Board, Shastri Nagar, Bhilwara (Rajasthan).

3. Bhagwani D/o Shri Narsi Ram, aged about 25 Years, R/o V.P.O. Binchawa, Didwana, District Nagaur (Rajasthan).

4. Bhalla Ram S/o Shri Kana Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Uttesar, Luni, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

5. Nema Ram S/o Shri Mana Ram, aged about 29 Years, R/o Village Dheedas, Samdari, District Barmer (Rajasthan).

6. Shrichand Vishnoi S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged about 29 Years, R/o Village Bhikamkaur, Osian, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(8 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2049/2021 Diwakar Goswami S/o Ram Prakash Goswami, age 25 Years, Resident of Hathiyon Ka Chowk, Ward No. 2, Village Adila, Post Kapren, Tehsil Keshorai Patan, District Bundi (Rajasthan) (Date of Birth 04.06.1995).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Department of Education (Elementary), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Director, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. Director, Elementary Education, Directorate of Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Rajasthan).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2275/2021 Teepu S/o Shri Gena Ram, aged about 31 Years, R/o Ganganiyon Ki Dhani, V/p Kalewa, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary) Government Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principle Secretary Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2374/2021 Bhanwar Lal S/o Kana Ram, aged about 29 Years, R/o 39, Shree Janray Ji Ka Bas Piplad, Sojat, District Pali, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

(9 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2458/2021

1. Gena Ram S/o Chimna Ram, aged about 24 Years, R/o Village Post Meghwalo Ka Bas, Uttesar, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur

2. Jagdish Prasad S/o Devi Lal, aged about 36 Years, R/o Village Post Jaitsisar, Sardar Shahar, District Churu.

3. Dalip Kumar S/o Mani Ram, aged about 36 Years, R/o Village Post Rajpura, Ward No.15, Churu.

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through its Principal Secretary, Department of Education (Elementary), Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2766/2021

1. Sawai Ram Meghwal S/o Ganga Ram, aged about 25 Years, R/o Village and Post Mokheri, Tehsil Phalodi, Jodhpur.

2. Dharmendra Singh S/o Nabav Singh, aged about 24 Years, R/o Village and Post Santruk, Tehsil Kumher, Bharatpur.

3. Shobhag Mal Nagar S/o Bheru Lal Nagar, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Khera, Post Harigarh, Tehsil Khanpur, Jhalawar.

(10 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

4. Sunita Nogiya D/o Lal Chand Nogiya, aged about 25 Years, R/o Deipol, Chunginaka, Ward No.15, Nainwa, District Bundi.

5. Sanju Choudhary D/o Jagannath Prasad Choudhary, aged about 31 Years, R/o Ward No.01, Hanuman Nagar, Pachar, Via Khachariawas, District Sikar.

6. Mukesh Chand Saini S/o Lalu Ram Saini, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village and Post Saloli, Tehsil Rani, District Alwar.

7. Komal Kumari D/o Navaratna Lal, aged about 26 Years, R/ o Kauakho, Chatikana Bazaar, Karauli, District Karauli.

8. Anita D/o Virendra, aged about 26 Years, R/o Neemrana, Village and Post Mehtawas, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar.

9. Bruesh Kumar Dhakar S/o Lal Chand Dhakar, aged about 31 Years, R/o Banniya, Post Bheem Sagar, Tehsil Khanpur, District Jhalawar.

10. Ram Avtar Bairwa S/o Ladu Ram Bairwa, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Teekar, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara.

11. Avinash Rolaniya S/o Girdhari Lal, aged about 32 Years, R/o Village and Post Kaant, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur.

12. Narsi Ram S/o Bhojpal, aged about 23 Years, R/o Isapur, Katara, Ishapur, Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary) Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj. Department, Government of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2981/2021

1. Suman Mundel D/o Shri Nathu Ram Mundel, aged about 33 Years, R/o Sadokan, Tehsil and Dist. Nagaur (Raj.).

(11 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

2. Sharvan Lal Choudhary S/o Shri Hanuman Sahay, aged about 29 Years, R/o Kareda Khurd, Tehsil Chaksu, Dist. Jaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2039/2021 Rakesh Godara S/o Shri Sumer Singh Godara, aged about 35 Years, R/o B-4, Het Nagar, Udasar Phanta, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

--- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through The Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

3. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Heeraram Vishnoi, age 25 years, R/o Village & Post Newai, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Raj.)

4. Lalit Kumar S/o Shri Deveng, age 36 years, R/o Vallabh Chowk, Bagidora, District Banswara (Raj.)

5. Milan Upadhyay S/o Jayantilal Upadhyay, age 40 years, Ro Ward No.07, Brahman Patidar Mohalla, Jalana, District Banswara (Raj)

6. Bhaktaveer Singh S/o Shri Narpat Singh Rathor, age 33 years, R/o Rajput Fala, Ratdiaya, Dungarpur (Raj)

7. Ronak Dixit S/o Shri Madhukar Dixit, age 35 years, R/o Ward No.13, Bhattmewara, Khadagada, District Dungarpur (Raj.)

8. Prakash Chandra Chamar S/o Shri Sukhlal Chamar, age 39 years, R/o Ward No.7, Mukam Padra, Post Padra, Yadav Basti, Padwa, District Dungarpur (Raj.)

9. Mahendra Kumar Chhagan S/o Shri Manilal Chhagan, age 36 years, R/o Fala Mukam, Post Gadamedatiya, District Dungarpur (Raj.)

(12 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

10. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Shri Narayan Lal, age 38 years, R/o Chamunderi Rana Watan, Pali, Bali (Raj.)

11. Bhanwar Lal Solanki S/o Shri Jodha Ram Solanki, age 32 years, R/o Solankiyo Ki Dhaaniya, Acheena, Achina, Nagaur (Raj.)

--- Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2290/2021 Harekrishna Patidar S/o Natwar Lal Patidar, aged about 25 Years, R/o VPO Nadiya District, Dungarpur (Rajasthan)

--- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner. District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

--Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3165/2021 Manjeet Singh S/o Shri Kashi Ram, aged about 34 Years, R/o V.P.O. Raghabari, Rajgarh, District Churu (Rajasthan).

- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan).

--- Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3198/2021

1. Prema Ram S/o Shri Bhura Ram Suthar, aged about 36 Years, R/o Sutharon Ka Pada, Jaisalmer - 345028 (Rajasthan)

2. Mukna Ram S/o Shri Swarop Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o V.P.O. Subhdand, Luni, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

--- Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through the Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

--- Respondents

(13 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3347/2021 Mahesh Kumar S/o Bhoop Singh, aged about 24 Years, R/o Ward No.89, Village and Post Masitanwali, Dist. Hanumangarh.

--- Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner. District Bikaner (Rajasthan)

--- Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17584/2021

1. Jagdish Bhakar S/o Mangla Ram, aged about 33 Years, R/o Village Pateli, Post Borwa, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur.

2. Manish Kumar Saini S/o Sh. Ram Lal Saini, aged about 26 Years, R/o VPO Bhasu, Todaraisingh Nagar, District Tonk (Raj.).

3. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Sh. Raji Ram, aged about 32 Years, R/o Chak 1 KMW Sansardesar, Tehsil Chhattargarh, District Bikaner.

4. Ratan Lal Saini S/o Sh. Lallu Lal, aged about 35 Years, R/ o Mithi Kothi, V/p Mitrapura, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur.

5. Gopal Ram Nain S/o Sh. Satyanarayn Nain, aged about 33 Years, R/o Village Khartwas, Post Dhana Bhakaran, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.

6. Laddu Ram Meena S/o Sh. Dhanna Meena, aged about 34 Years, R/o Village Bhagawatpura, Post Shrirampura, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk.

7. Babu Lal Panwar S/o Shri Kishan Ram Panwar, aged about 37 Years, R/o V/p Khar Ki Beti Rohila, Tehsil Dhorimana, District Barmer.

8. Dharmveer Thori S/o Sh. Shyokaran Thori, aged about 26 Years, R/o Rajiyasar Station, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

--- Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

(14 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

2. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

--- Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17589/2021

1. Deen Dayal Kala S/o Sh. Richhpal Kala, aged about 33 Years, Resident of VPO Gopalpura, District Churu.

2. Suresh S/o Sh. Ram Lal, aged about 29 Years, Resident of Village Dhamana Ka Goliya, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore.

3. Sonal Jangir S/o Sh. Ram Kumar Jangir, aged about 29 Years, Resident of Ward No. 3, Near Vishwa Karma Dharamshala, Taranagar, Churu.

4. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Binja Ram, aged about 35 Years, Resident of Vishnoiyon Ki Dhani, Bhawar, Sedwa, District Barmer.

5. Vishnu Kumar S/o Shri Bheema Ram, aged about 24 Years, Resident of V/p Jaisindhar, Tehsil Gadra Road, District Barmer.

6. Pawan Kumar S/o Sh. Lal Chand, aged about 38 Years, Resident of VPO Deidass, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh.

7. Subhash Chandra Bishnoi S/o Shri Dungar Ram Bishnoi, aged about 36 Years, Resident of Village Dharnok, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner.

8. Goutam Chand Regar S/o Sh. Bhika Ram Regar, aged about 39 Years, Resident of 478, Regar Mohalla, Village Giri, Tehsil Raipur, District Pali.

9. Mahesh Kumar Gaur S/o Sh. Ramswaroop, aged about 28 Years, Resident of Village Manch, Post Ata, Tehsil and District Karauli.

10. Bheem Singh Kathat S/o Sh. Punam Singh Kathat, aged about 29 Years, Resident of Village Khokari, Post Giri, District Pali.

11. Avadesh Kumar Jangid S/o Sh. Amara Ram Jangid, aged about 27 Years, Resident of VPO Agewa, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali.

(15 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

12. Bajrang Lal Jogi S/o Sh. Nand Lal Jogi, aged about 26 Years, Resident of Village Richhwa, Tehsil Bakani, District Jhalawar.

13. Kamal Singh Gurjar S/o Shri Banshi Lal Gurjar, aged about 27 Years, Resident of Village Reta, Post Dubbi, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

14. Sohan Lal Bairwa S/o Mohan Lal Bairwa, aged about 30 Years, Resident of Village Dungar Sikrai, Post Kundera Sikrai, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa.

15. Manisha Raiswal S/o Sh. Laxman Lal Bairwa, aged about 30 Years, Resident of Adarsh Colony, Mandawar Road, Tehsil Mehwa, District Dausa.

16. Ramawatar S/o Shri Ramkaran Muwal, aged about 28 Years, Resident of Village Dukiya, Post Bhanwal, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur.

17. Varsha Sen D/o Shri Satish Chandra Sen, aged about 31 Years, Resident of Near Math Mandir, Ojha Gali, Mandal, District Bhilwara.

--- Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

--- Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17639/2021

1. Sawai Ram S/o Heera Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o Sutharo Ka Vas Rama, Tehsil Fatehgarh, District Jaisalmer.

2. Dharamveer Thori S/o Shyokaran Thori, aged about 25 Years, R/o Rajiyasar Station, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar.

3. Prem Choudhar D/o Badri Lal Choudhary, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Rampuraunti, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

4. Hemant Kumar S/o Pola Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/o Sanpa Manji, Sindhari, District Barmer.

(16 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

5. Chanchal Saini S/o Rajendra Kumar Saini, aged about 35 Years, R/o Plot No. 84, Mukhya Sodala, New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur.

6. Shrawani Kumari D/o Bhana Ram, aged about 33 Years, R/o VPO Gothara Tagelan, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar.

7. Suresh Kumar Choudhary S/o Gopal Lal Choudhary, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Awandiya, Post Pachala, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur.

8. Ganesh Prajapat S/o Cheetar Lal Prajapat, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Kharol, Post Ghar, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk.

9. Sushil Chharang S/o Parasa Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o Village Igyasani, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.

10. Vimla D/o Sukh Ram, aged about 28 Years, R/o VPO Neepal, Tehsil Rani, District Pali.

11. Hemant Kumar S/o Nar Singh, aged about 33 Years, R/o Regaran Mohalla, Raipur, District Pali.

12. Mangi Lal Dagar S/o Mahoru Lal, aged about 40 Years, R/ o Village Bhankrota Khurd, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur.

13. Surgyan Yogi S/o Mohan Lal Yogi, aged about 35 Years, R/o Village Dewan, Post Shahpura, District Jaipur.

14. Arjun Latiyal S/o Ram Niwas, aged about 27 Years, R/o Village Basni Rama Charan, Post Satlawas, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur.

15. Hari Singh Meena S/o Anndi Lal Meena, aged about 35 Years, R/o Village Dhikla, Post Kanwara, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk.

16. Ashok Kumar S/o Nand Lal Moond, aged about 34 Years, R/o VPO Khinwasar, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu.

17. Om Prakash S/o Chandu Ram, aged about 27 Years, R/o VPO Mokalsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Shri Ganganagar.

18. Babu Lal Meena S/o Ramkishan Meena, aged about 30 Years, R/o Village Khedoolya Lalan, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk.

--- Petitioners Versus

(17 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner.

--- Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajesh Punia (through VC) Mr. M.S. Godara (through VC) Mr. Sushil Solanki (through VC) Mr. P.D. Bohra (through VC) Mr. Prakash Chand Sharma (through VC) Mr. Falgun Buch (through VC) Mr. Ramdeen Choudhary (through VC) For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General with Mr. K.S.Lodha (through VC) Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Choudhary & Mr. Aniket Tater (through VC) Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG (through VC) Mr. Mridul Dave (through VC) Mr. C.S. Kotwani (through VC) Mr. P.R. Mehta (through VC) Mr. Suniel Purohit (through VC) Mr. Abhishek B. Sharma (through VC) Mr. VLS Rajpurohit (through VC) Mr. Narendra Singh Rajpurohit (through VC) Mr. Kailash Jangid (through VC) Mr. C.P. Trivedi (through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 23/03/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners in

relation to recruitment of Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and Teacher

Grade-III (Level-II) pursuant to Recruitment-2018 under the

Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Act, 1994 ("Act of 1994") and Rajasthan

Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 ("Rules of 1996").

(18 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

The recruitment was initiated by issuance of Advertisement

dated 12.04.2018 for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level I for

Non-TSP area and Advertisement dated 31.07.2018 for

recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) for Non-

TSP area. Based on the advertisement, provisional selection lists

were issued and the selected candidates were called for document

verification; pursuant thereto, the eligible candidates were offered

appointments.

As due to ineligibility/absence of the candidates at the time

of document verification and non-joining by various appointed

candidates, several posts remained unfilled, the State Government

pursuant to order dated 25.02.2019 (Annex.14 with SBCWP

No.2458/2021) prepared reserve/wait lists dated 08.05.2019 and

28.02.2019 for Level-I and Level-II respectively, called the

candidates for document verification and offered appointments.

When various posts still remained unfilled, again because of

ineligibility/absence of the candidates at the time of document

verification and non-joining of the various appointed candidates,

the State decided not to proceed further pursuant to Recruitment-

2018, a batch of writ petitions led by Kuldeep Kumar vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2094/2019

pertaining to Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) came to be filed, which

were decided by order dated 20.07.2020 whereby the petitions

were allowed.

Similarly, following the judgment in the case of Kuldeep

Kumar (supra), a group of petitions pertaining to Teacher Grade-

III (Level-I) led by Lokendra Singh vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1184/2020 came to be decided by order

dated 17.08.2020.

(19 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

When the State implemented the directions given in the case

of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra) by issuing

list dated 29.12.2020 for Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and list dated

11.01.2021 for Teacher Grade-III (Level-II), the same resulted in

filing of the present writ petitions, led by Ramniwas pertaining to

Teacher Grade-III (Level-I) and Rakesh Godara relating to Teacher

Grade-III (Level-II).

The petitioners in the petitions have assailed the validity of

the list being allegedly in violation of the provisions of Rule 277 A

(vi) of the Rules of 1996 and in view of the fact that the cutoff for

Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) in the list dated 29.12.2020 for

General Male and OBC Male were identical i.e. 70.67% with the

submission that the respondents pursuant to decision dated

25.02.2019 (Annex.14), were bound to reshuffle the candidates

and the offering of the appointment category-wise by the

respondents is ex-facie contrary to the law.

Submissions have been made that the law with regard to

recruitment and operating of the list is well settled, inasmuch as

against the vacancy identified for open category, everyone

irrespective of their category, should be allowed to compete on the

basis of merit and meritorious candidates should be first selected

under the open quota, which aspect has been grossly violated by

the respondents while issuing the lists dated 29.12.2020 and

11.01.2021. Submissions have been made that the directions

given in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh

(supra) have been wrongly implemented, inasmuch as the

direction given was required to be read in the context and the

respondents have violated the law, as laid down. It is prayed that

the petitions deserve to be allowed, the lists as published deserve

(20 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

to be quashed and the respondents be directed to act in

accordance with law by following the procedure prescribed under

Rule 277A (vi) of the Rules of 1996 and various judgments of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court.

Reliance has been placed on State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. vs.

K. Shobana : (2021) 4 SCC 686, Pramod Kumar Singh vs. State of

U.P. : (2021) 4 SCC 680 and Saurav Yadav vs. State of U.P. :

(2021) 4 SCC 542.

Alternative submission was made that even if the

respondents contrary to law have accorded appointment to several

candidates, still on account of passing of interim orders in the

present writ petitions, large number of posts are lying vacant, at

least they need to be filled up in accordance with law.

Learned Advocate General made vehement submissions that

the respondents have complied with the directions given in the

case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra),

wherein the respondents were specifically directed to fill the

remaining posts of each subject 'while operating category-wise

reserve list'. The respondents have followed the said directions,

which neither can be questioned nor a petition challenging the

compliance of the judgment is maintainable. Further submissions

were made that the learned Single Judge, who delivered the

judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), suto-moto issued

clarification dated 25.02.2021 modifying the directions given on

20.07.2020. The said order was questioned by State by filing

D.B.S.A.W. No.357/2021 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Suresh

Kumar Jat & Ors.), which special appeal came to be allowed by the

Division Bench on 22.11.2021, whereby the order dated

25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge was reversed and

(21 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to contend contrary to

the directions issued on 20.07.2020 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar

(supra) followed in the case of Lokendra Singh (supra). Further

submissions were made that the selected candidates pursuant to

lists dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 have not been impleaded

as party respondents and in their absence, no order contrary to

their interest can be passed.

Submissions were also made that the State has followed the

law as laid down by following the provisions of Rule 277 A (vi) of

the Rules of 1996 and that question of reshufflling does not arise

in the case of wait list, which aspect is well settled and therefore,

the plea sought to be raised by the petitioners, even otherwise

has not substance. It was prayed that the petitions be dismissed.

Reliance was placed on Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar vs. State of

Maharashtra : AIR 1967 SC 1, Kanta Parihar vs. State of

Rajasthan : 1999 (3) RLW 1467, Kumari Rashmi Mishra vs. M.P.

Public Service Commission & Ors. : (2006) 12 SCC 724, Surjit

Singh Rathord & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.6138/2020 decided on 20.12.2021, Chhatar Singh

vs. State of Rajasthan : (1996) 11 SCC 742, State of Rajasthan &

Anr. vs. Kavita Godara & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.103/2021 decided on 02.03.2021 (Jaipur Bench), State of

Rajasthan & Anr. vs. Suresh Kumar Jat & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special

Appeal (Writ) No.357/2021 decided on 22.11.2021 and R.P.S.C.

vs. Jata Shankar & Ors. : D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.823/2018 decided on 09.08.2018 (Jaipur Bench).

I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for

the parties and have perused the material available on record.

(22 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

The facts, which are not in dispute, wherein the respondents

pursuant to advertisement, in terms of Rule 277A (vi) of the Rules

of 1996 issued the initial list of the candidates who were called for

document verification, subsequent whereof orders for appointment

to selected candidates were issued. Large number of vacancies

remained unfilled on account of various reasons including in

eligibility of the candidates, absence of the candidates at the time

of document verification and non-joining of the appointed

candidates. The respondents formulated procedure by order dated

25.02.2019 (Annex.14) for the purpose of filling up the unfilled

posts, based on which second list was issued. Again due to the

same reasons, several posts remained unfilled in both Level(s) I &

II. The State, as noticed herein before, decided to put a halt to the

Recruitment-2018. The said action came to be questioned by filing

petitions led by Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh

(supra) for Level II and I, respectively.

The writ petition in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) came

to be decided by order dated 20.07.2020 by a Coordinate Bench of

this Court, wherein the operative portion reads as under:

"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."

(emphasis supplied)

A similar order came to be passed in the case of Lokendra

Singh and connected petitions, which pertain to Level-I.

The State in purported implementation of the judgment in

the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and Lokendra Singh (supra)

(23 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

issued lists dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021 for Level I and

Level-II respectively.

The manner of the preparation of lists dated 29.12.2020 and

11.01.2021 came to be again questioned by way of filing present

writ petitions.

During the course of hearing of present writ petitions when

the matter came up before the same Bench, which had delivered

the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), the Bench

after coming to the conclusion that order dated 20.07.2020 in the

case of Kuldeep Kumar required review/reconsideration, ordered

for listing of decided CWP No.2094/2019 alongwith all connected

matters and after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion and

directed as under on 25.02.2021:

"CONCLUSION:

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."

Feeling aggrieved, the State filed a special appeal being SAW

No.357/2021 against the order dated 25.02.2021, wherein the

(24 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan vs. Suresh Kumar

Jat (supra), came to following conclusion:

"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 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 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

(25 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

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."

It would be seen from the order of the Division Bench that

the order dated 25.02.2021 came to be reversed and the

observations were made that the select list prepared by the State

in furtherance of order dated 20.07.2020 would be examined on

the basis of material on record in the pending petition.

The resultant position which emerges is that the directions

given in paragraph 51 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra)

remains intact, the operative portion whereof is very clear and

specific requiring the respondents to fill up the remaining posts of

each subject while operating category-wise reserve list. Identical

direction was given in the case of Lokendra Singh for Level-I.

It would be seen from the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by

the Bench, which delivered the judgment in the case of Kuldeep

Kumar on 20.07.2020 that the Court did not find that the direction

as given on 20.07.2020 was in any manner violated by the

respondents and, therefore, decided to review/reconsider the

direction and modified the same by order dated 25.02.2021,

which order, though came to be reversed by the Division Bench.

It is surprising that the petitioners in the present writ

petitions, despite aggrieved of the direction/becoming aware of

the requirement to get the direction dated 20.07.2020 in the case

of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) modified, chose neither to file a review

petition qua the order dated 20.07.2020 nor question its validity

(26 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

by filing special appeals after seeking leave, resulting in the order

dated 20.07.2020 and directions contained therein becoming final

in all respects.

In fact, once the Division Bench only on account of the fact

that suo-moto power exercised by the Coordinate Bench in

passing of the order dated 25.02.2021 was not justified reversed

the order, the same was an indication enough for the petitioners to

have initiated appropriate proceedings, as they felt aggrieved, for

getting the order dated 20.07.2020 modified in terms of their

contentions. However, as no steps in this regard have been taken,

as already observed, the direction as contained in paragraph 51 of

the order dated 20.07.2020, has attained finality.

The submission now made in these writ petitions seeking to

question the action of the respondents in not following the

mandate of provisions of Rule 277A (vi) of the Rules and/or

various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is essentially

requiring this Court to examine the validity/to take a view/issue

directions contrary to what is contained in paragraph 51 of the

order in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra).

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naresh Shridhar

Mirajkar (supra) inter-alia observed as under:

"38. The argument that the impugned order affects the fundamental rights of the petitioners under Art. 19(1), is based on a complete misconception about the true nature and character of judicial process and of judicial decisions. When a Judge deals with matters brought before him for his adjudication, he first decides questions, of fact on which the parties are at issue, and then applies the relevant law to the said facts. Whether the findings of fact recorded by the Judge are right or wrong, and whether the conclusion of law drawn by him suffers from any infirmity, can be considered and decided if the party aggrieved by the decision of the Judge takes the matter up before the appellate Court. But it is singularly inappropriate to assume that a judicial decision pronounced by a Judge of competent jurisdiction in or in

(27 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

relation to a matter brought before him for adjudication can affect the fundamental rights of the citizens under Art. 19 (1).What the judicial decision purports to do is to decide the controversy between the parties brought before the court and nothing more. If this basic and essential aspect of the judicial process is borne in mind, it would be plain that the judicial verdict pronounced by court in or in relation to a matter brought before it for its decision cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of citizens under Art. 19(1).

39. The impugned order is, in a sense, an order of a collateral nature; it has no direct relation with the decision of the dispute which had been brought before the Court in the proceedings between the parties. The learned Judge however, thought that in order that he should be able to do full justice between the parties it was necessary to pass the impugned order. Thus, though the order in a sense is collateral to the proceedings which were pending before the Court, it was directly connected with the said proceedings inasmuch as the learned Judge found that he could not do justice between the parties and decide the matter satisfactorily unless the publication of Mr. Goda's evidence was prohibited pending the trial. The order is not collateral in the sense that the jurisdiction of the Judge to pass that order can be challenged otherwise than by a proceeding in appeal. Just as an order passed by the court on the merits of the dispute before it can be challenged only in appeal and cannot be said to contravene the fundamental rights of the litigants before the Court, so could the impugned order be challenged in appeal under Art. 136 of the Constitution, but it cannot be said to affect the fundamental rights of the petitioners. The character of the judicial order remains the same whether it is passed in a matter directly in issue between the parties, or is passed incidentally to make the adjudication of the dispute between the parties fair and effective. On this view of the matter, it seems to us that the whole attack against the impugned order based on the assumption that it infringes the petitioners' fundamental rights under Art. 19(1), must fail."

(emphasis supplied)

Similarly, in the case of Kanta Parihar (supra), following the

principles laid down in the case of Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar

(supra), it was observed as under:

"27. In fact, the impugned order dated 19.8.98 cannot be said to be an amendment even by stretch of imagination. It was meant merely for information to the concerned authorities about the judgments of this Court for their enforcement/implementation. Issuing such a circular/order directing the authorities to implement the order of court of law cannot be said to be an amendment of the Statutory Rules. Therefore, that judgment is with all due respects to my esteemed brother Sharma, J., is of no assistance to the petitioners. The impugned order dated

(28 of 29) [CW-604/2021 A-w connected writs]

19.8.98 is an order passed consequent to the judgments and orders of this Court. I am at complete loss to understand as how these petitions can be entertained for the reason that a judicial order can be challenged only in appeal and it can never be amenable to judicial review in writ jurisdiction. (Vide Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar v. State of Maharashtra (7). Entertaining these petitions would amount to sitting in appeal against the earlier judgments of the Division Benches of this Court, and such an action, undoubtedly, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."

(emphasis supplied)

In view of above fact situation, wherein apparently in

absence of any review/appeal qua the order dated 20.07.2020 in

the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), the same has become final,

the modification made by the learned Single Judge by order dated

25.02.2021 having been reversed by the Division Bench and

passing of the order in the present circumstances by this Court

contrary to what has been directed in the order dated 20.07.2020

without commenting on the merit of said order, which is

impermissible in law, the petitions filed by the petitioners seeking

exactly the same from this Court, cannot be accepted.

Despite exhaustive submissions made by the counsel for the

parties on the interpretation of the provisions of Rule 277A (vi) of

the Rules of 1996 as well as various judgments with regard to

operating the wait / reserve list, the nature of the list prepared by

the respondents under Rule 277A (vi), various difficulties pointed

out by the learned Advocate General in accepting the plea raised

by the petitioners, absence of the selected candidates pursuant to

lists dated 29.12.2020 and 11.01.2021, have not been

adjudicated by this Court, as from going into said aspect, this

Court feels constricted in exercising its jurisdiction, which in case

the contentions of the petitioners are accepted, would amount to

holding the direction contained in the order dated 20.07.2020