Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
The Union Of India vs Manish Sharma on 7 May, 2022
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
(1) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2952/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Through
Its Assistant Controller Of Examination, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Jodhpur, Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Chhagan Lal S/o Shri Ameda Ram, R/o Villagev And Post Heera
Ki Dhani, Tehsil Gira, District Barmer (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(2) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3391/2022
1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of
Health And Family Welfare, Maulana Azad Road, New
Delhi, 110011.
2. The All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar
(East), New Delhi 110023
3. Assistant Controller, (Exams), Examination Section, The
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, New Delhi,
110023
4. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Through
The Director, Basni Industrial Area, Mia Second Phase,
Basni, Jodhpur, 342001
----Petitioners
Versus
Manish Sharma S/o Shri Dharmendra Sharma, R/o Village
Nagaur, District Nagaur, (Rajasthan) 341001.
----Respondent
(3) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2895/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Through
Its Assistant Controller Of Examinations, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi- 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Nirmala Choudhary D/o Shri Rajendra Singh Khoja, R/o
Purani Tanki Ke Pass, Saradhana, Ajmer At Present Jodhpur,
Rajasthan, 305206
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(2 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
(4) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2533/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examinations,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi,110608
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur - 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Amita Kumari D/o Shri Mohar Singh, Vpo Bhorki, Tehsil
Udaipur Wati, District Jhunjhunu At Present Jodhpur
(Rajasthan) 333032
----Respondent
(5) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3013/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari
Nagar (East), New Delhi, 110608
2. Assistant Controller ( Exams), Examination Section,
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), Sri
Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar (East), New Delhi,
110608
3. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Basni Industrial Area, 2Nd
Phase, Basni, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Manoj Siyol S/o Shri Oma Ram Siyol, 265 Janta
Colony, Sector No. 02. Kudi Bhagtasani, Housing
Board, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Tatibandh, Ge Road, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh - 492099
----Respondents
(6) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3021/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Basni
Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Rakesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, R/o Village
Shrawanpura, Post Anandpura, Tehsil Kuchaman City,
District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(3 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
(7) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3111/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari
Nagar (East), New Delhi 110608.
2. Assistant Controller (Exams), Examination Section,
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims) Sri
Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar (East), New Delhi
110608.
3. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Basni Industrial Area, 2Nd
Phase, Basni, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Ramji Lal Saini S/o Shri Arjun Lal Saini, R/o Dhani
Jhora Uparli, Post Bhudoli, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana,
District Sikar (Rajasthan).
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Tatibandh, Ge Road, Raipur,
Chhattisgarh 492099.
----Respondents
(8) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3123/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Nitesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, 94 Godaron Ki Dhaniyan,
Village Bhandiyawas, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer,
Rajasthan
----Respondent
(9) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3201/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari
Nagar (East), New Delhi 110608.
2. Assistant Controller (Exams), Examination Section,
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims) Sri
Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar (East), New Delhi
110608.
3. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims) Through The Director, Basni Industrial Area,
2Nd Phase, Basni, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(4 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
Prema Ram S/o Shri Chanda Ram, R/o Village Gawadiyo Ki
Dhani, Post Aagunta, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(10) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3202/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examinations,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Ms. Manem D/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, R/o Vpo Dabari Chhoti,
Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Rajasthan)
----Respondent
(11) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3407/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims), New
Delhi Through Its Director 110011
2. The All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Controller
Of Examination, Examination Section, New Delhi,
110016
3. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Through Its
Director, Jodhpur, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Yashwant Kumar Tak S/o Shri Bhag Chand Tak, R/o Vpo
Salembabad, Tehsil Kishangarh, Ajmer, Rajasthan
----Respondent
(12) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3413/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Through Its
Assistant Controller Of Examination, Ansari Nagar,
New Delhi, 110608
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Basni
Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Mamta Chouhan D/o Shri Chetan Lal, R/o 623, Dilip Nagar,
Lal Sagar, Post Punlla, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
(13) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3520/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(5 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Sunita Kumari D/o Shri Ram Singh, R/o Khedaro Ki Dhani,
Post Bamalas, Via Gudha Gor Ji, Tehsil Udaipurwati,
Jhunjhunu At Present Jodhpur (Rajasthan) 333022.
----Respondent
(14) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3061/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Jeevan Ram Jakhar S/o Shri Sohan Ram, R/o Sitariya
Bera, Bagoriya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan
----Respondent
(15) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3063/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Mahendra Acharya S/o Shri Murlidhar Acharya, R/o 437,
Achariyon Ka Bas, Vpo Koliya, Tehsil Deedwana, District
Nagaur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(16) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3066/2022
1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of
Health And Family Welfare, Nirmal Bhawan, New
Delhi, 110011
2. Assistant Controller Of Examination Section,
Examination Section, The All India Institute Of
Medical Sciences Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608
3. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Aiims Residential Complex,
Basni, Jodhpur, 342001
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(6 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
----Petitioners
Versus
Kishan Lal S/o Shri Roopa Ram, Bera Bhadarva, Village
And Post Maylawas, Tehsil Siwana, District Barmer,
Rajasthan
----Respondent
(17) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3113/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari
Nagar (East), New Delhi 110608.
2. Assistant Controller (Exams), Examination Section,
All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims) Sri
Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar (East), New Delhi
110608.
3. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Basni Industrial Area, 2Nd
Phase, Basni, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Pappu Lal Fulwariya S/o Shri Ganga Sahaya, R/o
Khal Ki Dhani, Post Didwana, Tehsil Lalsot, District
Dausa (Rajasthan).
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Saket Nagar, Bhopal,
Madhya Pradesh 462020.
----Respondents
(18) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3115/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Mota Ram S/o Shri Kana Ram, R/o Vpo Hatundi, Tehsil
Baori, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(19) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3374/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110608.
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(7 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Mamta Patel D/o Shri Mangi Lal, R/o P. No. 13, Patel
Basti, Khema Ka Kua, Pal Road, Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(20) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3377/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Jat S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Jat, R/o Village
Bavlas, Tehsil Mundal, District Bhilwara (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(21) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3385/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Through Its
Assistant Controller Of Examinations, Ansari
Nagar, New Delhi, 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Hari Ram Choudhary S/o Raju Ram Choudhary, Umoni
Daukiyon Ki Dhani, Batadu, Tehsil Baytu, District Barmer,
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(22) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3717/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajpal Yadav S/o Shri Bhagwan Sahay Yadav, Aged
About 24 Years, R/o 24, Dhani Yadvan, Village
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(8 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
Harvanshpurea, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(23) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3055/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Kesha Ram S/o Shri Kalu Ram, R/o 102, Hemani Lukho Ki
Dhani, Tehsil Baytoo, District Barmer At Present R/o
1/b/420, Kudi Bhagtasani, Housing Board, Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(24) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3367/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Ganesh Lal Kumawat S/o Shri Radhy Shyam Kumawat,
Gopalpura, Tehsil Mozmabad Dudu, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(25) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3370/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur,
342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Ram Niwas Bhadala S/o Shri Govind Ram Bhadala, R/o
Village Gawariya, Po Panchota, Tehsil Nawa, District
Nagaur, Rajasthan
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(9 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
----Respondent
(26) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3390/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination
Ansari Nagar New Delhi 110608
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Gheesa Ram, R/o 21 B.d.(A),
Tehsil Khajuwala, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
(27) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3409/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through The Director, Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari
Nagar, (East), New Delhi, 110608.
2. Assistant Controller, (Exams), Examination
Section, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Sri Aurobindo Marg, Ansari Nagar, East,
New Delhi, 110608
3. The Director, All India Institute Of Medical
Sciences, Basni Industrial Area, 2Nd Phase,
Basni, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Murlidhar S/o Shri Hariram, R/o Village And Post
Bhed, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur
(Rajasthan).
2. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Director, Saket Nagar, Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh 462020.
----Respondents
(28) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4214/2022
1. The Union Of India, Through The Principal
Secretary, Ministry Of Health And Family
Welfare, Nirmal Bhawan, New Delhi, 110011.
2. The All India Institute Of Medical Sciences,
Through Its Director, New Delhi, 342005
3. The All India Institute Of Medical Sciences,
Controller Of Examination, Examination Section,
Delhi 110016
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(10 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
4. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Through
Its Director Jodhpur 342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Magaram Choudhary S/o Shri Shera Ram
Choudhary, V/p Araba Chouhan, Tehsil
Pachpadara, Barmer, Rajasthan, 344026.
2. Pooran Nath S/o Shri Sohan Nath, Lakudi Magri,
Harsh Road, Ward No. 20, Tehsil Bilara, District
Jodhpur
----Respondents
(29) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3388/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examinations,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims) Jodhpur, Basni Phase Ii, Jodhpur, 342005
----Petitioners
Versus
Anil Choudhary S/o Girraj Choudhary, Village Nangal,
Post Kareda Bujurg, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk,
Rajasthan
----Respondent
(30) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3394/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examination,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur
342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Buddha Ram S/o Shri Trilok Ram, R/o Vpo Lunawas
Khara, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur (Rajasthan).
----Respondent
(31) D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3406/2022
1. All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (Aiims),
Through Its Assistant Controller Of Examinations,
Ansari Nagar, New Delhi, 110608.
2. Director, All India Institute Of Medical Sciences
(Downloaded on 07/05/2022 at 08:38:36 PM)
(11 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
(Aiims), Jodhpur, Basni, Phase Ii, Jodhpur,
342005.
----Petitioners
Versus
Jitendra Beniwal S/o Kana Ram, Village And Post Deh,
Near Gosala, Tehsil Jayal. District Nagaur, Rajasthan
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Deelip Kawadia
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Aniket Tater
Mr. Mahaveer Pareek
Mr. Keshav Bhati
Mr. Sachin Saraswat.
Mr. Manoj Pareek.
Mr. Navneet Singh Birkh
Mr. M.A. Siddiqui.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
JUDGMENT
Judgment pronounced on ::: 07/05/2022
Judgment reserved on ::: 30.03.2022 &
01/04/2022
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE MEHTA, J.)
1. The instant batch of writ petitions has been filed by All India
Institute of Medical Sciences through Controller of Examinations,
New Delhi and the Director, All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Jodhpur being aggrieved of the common order dated 04.10.2021
and orders dated 23.12.2021 passed by Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur whereby, the Original
Applications preferred by the respondents herein were accepted
and the petitioners herein were directed to complete the process
of posting the selected candidates in pursuance of the notification
(12 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
No.78/2018 dated 27.09.2018 purely on the basis of the
preference given by such candidates on overall merit secured by
them in the examination in their respective category.
2. As the writ petitions involve common questions of facts and
law, they have been heard and are being decided together by this
order.
3. Brief facts relevant and essential for disposal of these writ
petitions are noted hereinbelow:-
4. The petitioner No.1 All India Institute of Medical Sciences,
Delhi (hereinafter referred to as AIIMS, Delhi) conducted a
common examination for direct recruitment to Group 'D' posts of
Nursing Officer/Staff Nurse Grade-II vide notification No.78/2018
dated 27.09.2018 for AIIMS institutions countrywide. The
respondents (applicants before the Tribunal) applied for these
posts in the OBC category and as per the choice option given in
the recruitment notification, they ticked Jodhpur as first
preference for posting. The result of the selection examination was
declared on 20.02.2020. As per the prevailing procedure and
Government policies, the selected candidates were to be provided
posting as per merit in the respective category.
5. It is an admitted position that the respondents, who belong
to the OBC Category, were considered against the Unreserved/
General Category seats in the matter of providing place of posting
and were allotted different AIIMS contrary to their first preference.
The respondents herein ventilated their grievances by filing
Original Applications before the Tribunal contending that several
other candidates, who stood much below in rank as compared to
the applicants, were accommodated/allotted seats at AIIMS
Jodhpur in an arbitrary manner by ignoring the merit and hence, a
(13 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
prayer was made to direct the petitioners herein to
allot/accommodate the respondents herein at the AIIMS Jodhpur
in accordance with their merit and by adhering to the lawful
procedure, these applications were allowed by a common order
dated 4.10.2021 which is assailed in this bunch of appeals.
6. Learned counsel Shri Kawadia representing the petitioners
submitted that the learned Tribunal was absolutely unjustified and
acted without jurisdiction while accepting the Original Applications
filed by the respondents. The persons likely to be adversely
affected by outcome of the Original Applications (those who have
been given posting at the AIIMS Jodhpur even though they stood
lower in rank as compared to the applicant respondents), were not
impleaded as party respondents in the Original Applications. He
further urged that only short reply with preliminary objections was
filed before the Tribunal and detailed reply was not filed by the
petitioners herein and hence, they have been seriously prejudiced
on account of not being provided appropriate opportunity to
contest the original applications. He thus implored this Court to
accept these writ petitions, set aside the impugned order and
remand the matters to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after
giving opportunity of filing detailed reply to the petitioners herein
and by impleading the likely to be affected persons as party
respondents therein.
7. He urged that the result was declared way back on
20.02.2020 and the candidates, who would be dislodged by the
relief granted by the Tribunal to the respondents herein, have
been severely prejudiced on account of the impugned judgment
and hence also, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.
Shri Kawadia further submitted that since the examination was
(14 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
conducted by the AIIMS Delhi, the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Jodhpur Bench, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the Original
Applications and therefore too, the impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
8. However, upon a pertinent query being put to Shri Kawadia,
he unhesitatingly admitted that as per the recruitment
notification, the place of posting/allotment of AIIMS was to be
decided on the basis of the merit of the candidate concerned in
the respective category and that the concept of reservation was
not to be applied in this exercise. He also was not in a position to
dispute the position that the common recruitment examination
was conducted by the AIIMS Delhi for selection and providing
nursing staff to AIIMS institutions across the country.
9. Learned counsel representing the respondents herein
vehemently and fervently opposed the submissions advanced by
Shri Kawadia. They urged that it is not in dispute that as per
terms and conditions of the recruitment notification and the
prevailing regulations and guidelines, posting of the successful
candidates was required to be made by strictly adhering to the
preferences ticked by the candidates as per their position in merit.
It is not disputed by the petitioners that the respondents, who are
all candidates of OBC Category, secured more marks and stood
higher in merit as compared to other OBC candidates who have
been given posting at AIIMS Jodhpur. They urged that the
petitioners have flouted the mandatory terms of recruitment
notification inasmuch as, while allotting the posting places, they
acted in a gross illegal arbitrary manner and moved the
respondents into the Unreserved Category by applying social
reservation in the matter of providing posting whereas, it was only
(15 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
limited to the process of selection and cannot govern the place of
posting which is to be decided strictly on merit of the candidates
in their own category. They pointed out that as per the result
notification dated 20.02.2020, the seats were bifurcated
categorywise and hence, the postings had to be provided as per
the merit position of the successful candidates in their respective
category. Learned counsel representing the respondents drew the
Court's attention to the judgment dated 11.02.2021 rendered by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in
Original Application No.571/2020 (Ankit Tada and Ors. Vs.
Union of India & Ors.), whereby, the Original Application of
those candidates, who are at par with the respondents herein, was
accepted in the following terms:-
"13. We make it clear that the allocation of vacancies to
different categories in different hospitals were not part of the
selection process at all. At the cost of repetition, we mention
that reservation was never treated as a factor for posting at
different hospitals. The respondents are not entitled to
introduce the same at the stage of posting. In the counter
affidavit also, extensive exercise is undertaken to justify the
postings on the basis of reservation. Once the respondents
did not mention in the advertisement that the posting
would be on the basis of reservation, they cannot be
permitted to introduce the same at a later stage. They
fall back upon the general principal of allocation under
the policy evolved by the Government.
14. There would have been occasion for implementation of
reservation at the stage of allocation also had it been a case
where each hospital constituted a different service and the
applicants were required to choose the service. In such an
event, the pattern of selection would have been different. In
(16 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
case, their merit and the option did not enable them to get a
vacancy in a particular service, in the unreserved category,
they would have switched over to reserved category.
Fortunately enough, there is no two tier selection
process. The social status becomes relevant only in the
context of selection to the post and as such. It is not
at all in the context of posting at various places.
15. In view of the discussion undertaken above, we allow the
OAs and set aside the impugned order in so far it did not
accommodate the applicants at the places of their choice
depending upon their overall merit, independent of their
social status. The respondents shall complete the exercise
and post the selected candidates, in pursuance of the
notification dated 23.01.2020 purely on the basis of
(a)choice of the candidates and (b) merit obtained by them
in the examination, within two months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order.
16. To be more cautious in this behalf, we direct that
social status of a candidate or the factor of reservation
shall not be taken into account, in the context of
posting. The preference mentioned in the application
form shall be treated as final and without any
subsequent alteration. We also leave it open to the
respondents to confine the exercise, only to the
applicants herein, to avoid further complications. The
relief is confined to the applicants alone. The entire exercise
shall in no way, disturb the selection of any candidate."
10. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
controversy involved in the matters at hand is squarely covered by
the aforesaid decision and hence, the Tribunal's order requires no
interference whatsoever by this Court in exercise of its
extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
(17 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
11. Shri Deelip Kawadia, counsel representing the petitioners,
candidly conceded that on legal principles and factual matrix, the
controversy involved in these writ petitions, is squarely covered by
the aforesaid judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi. However, his fervent contention was
that in the matters before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Principal Bench, New Delhi, the candidates likely to be adversely
affected were impleaded as parties. His further contention was
that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi made it very clear that the relief was being confined to the
applicants alone. Thus, as per Shri Kawadia, the judgment in the
case of Ankit Tada (supra), does not have any precedential
value as it is a "Judgment in persona" as opposed to a "Judgment
in rem".
12. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material
available on record as well as the impugned order. We have also
carefully perused the judgment rendered by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of
Ankit Tada (supra).
13. We are duly satisfied that as per the recruitment notification,
social reservation was to be applied only at the stage of making
selection and not at the time of posting. The petitioners however
acted in a totally illegal manner and while providing place of
posting moved the respondents who are OBC candidates into the
unreserved category by applying vertical reservation. It was very
clearly stipulated in the recruitment notification dated 27.09.2018
as well as in the result notification dated 20.02.2020, that posting
(18 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
would be provided by accepting the preference given by the
candidates on the basis of category-wise position in merit.
14. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi, examined identical controversy arising from the very same
recruitment and held that allocation of vacancies to different
categories in different hospitals, was not a part of the selection
process. Reservation was never treated as a factor for posting at
different hospitals. The respondents were not entitled to introduce
the same at the stage of posting. The endeavour of the employer
to introduce the concept of reservation at the stage of posting was
repelled and it was held that as the advertisement did not provide
that the posting would be on the basis of reservation, it could not
be permitted to be introduced at a later stage. The allocation
would be governed strictly by the policy evolved by the
Government.
15. In reference to the above findings of the Tribunal, we made
an enquiry from Shri Kawadia whether the services of the
employees in various AIIMS across the country are inter-se
transferable. He frankly conceded that it is not impermissible to
transfer an employee from one AIIMS to another though generally,
such transfers are not made. Apparently thus, the exercise of
providing posting to the candidate could not have been made by
ignoring the choice of the candidates with reference to the merit
obtained by them in the examination. By ignoring the merit of the
candidates while giving them posting, the respondents have acted
in an absolutely unconstitutional, high-handed and arbitrary
manner and have flouted the government policies, the terms and
conditions applicable to the recruitment process. The argument
advanced by Shri Kawadia that the affected candidates who will be
(19 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
prejudiced by the order of the Tribunal are required to be heard,
does not hold water because the recruitment notification itself
clearly stipulated that postings would be made on the basis of
merit. As merit has been ignored, apparently, the persons, who
stand lower in merit, can neither claim a right of hearing nor can
they claim to be prejudiced by allocation of the appropriate AIIMS
in terms of their own merit position. The observation made in para
16 of Ankit Tada's case that the relief was being confined to
those applicants alone, would not defeat the claim of the
respondent candidates because the said observation would have
to be considered keeping in view the fact that there may be
persons who might be satisfied with the posting given to them and
thus, an order 'in rem' would disturb the posting position of such
persons also. In the case of Ankit Tada (supra), the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, as a matter of
fact, did not confine the operation of the Judgment but only made
an observation that the respondents (the petitioners therein) were
at liberty to confine the exercise of postings to the applicants who
had approached the Tribunal. This observation can, in no manner,
be construed as foreclosing the rights of the meritorious
candidates who are entitled to similar relief. In any event, the
respondent applicants bonafide raised their grievances by filing
the Original Applications before the Tribunal well in time. They are
entitled to the relief claimed for, on equity as well as on merit and
hence, the learned Tribunal was absolutely justified in extending
the same vide the impugned Judgment.
16. The argument of Shri Kawadia that CAT Jodhpur Bench did
not have jurisdiction to entertain the lis is also without merit
because the AIIMS Delhi just held the consolidated exam for
(20 of 20) [CW-2952/2022]
countrywide selection. The respondents were successful in the
exam and stood higher in merit and as a consequence, sought
posting at AIIMS Jodhpur which was denied to them in a totally
illegal manner. Thus, the respondents definitely had the right to
approach the CAT Jodhpur Bench because they sought the relief of
being posted at AIIMS Jodhpur and thus, the cause of action
accrued to them at Jodhpur.
17. After thorough discussion of the material available on record,
we are of the firm view that the impugned Judgment dated
04.10.2021 and orders dated 23.12.2021 passed by Central
Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur does not suffer
from any illegality, infirmity or perversity whatsoever warranting
interference.
18. As a consequence, these writ petitions are rejected as being
devoid of merit.
19. A copy of this order be placed in each file.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
-Tikam Daiya/ Devesh Thanvi/-
60, 61, 114, 115 to 133
(Reserved on 30.03.2022)
65 to 70 and 77 to 79-
(Reserved on 01.04.2022)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
