Rajasthan High Court
The State Of Rajasthan vs Mordhwaj Singh S/O Kedar Singh on 17 November, 2022
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 840/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Education
Secretary, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Poonam Chaudhary D/o Shri Rambabu Singh, Aged About
33 Years, R/o Vpo Kurka, Tehsil Roopwas, District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
Connected With
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 841/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And
Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Mordhwaj Singh S/o Kedar Singh Father/o Kedar Singh,
Aged About 35 Years, Village Shahpur, Post Pahrasar,
Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur.
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 844/2022
The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Appellant
(2 of 9) [SAW-840/2022]
Versus
1. Mukesh Kumar Son Of Kalyan Singh, Aged About 47
Years, Resident Of Village Alwar, Tehsil Kumher, District
Bharatpur (Raj. (Roll No. 204331)
2. Virendra Singh Son Of Hari Ram, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of Village Dhonota, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
(Roll No. 213192).
3. Abhayveer Singh Son Of Ram Karan Singh Jat, Aged
About 47 Years, Resident Of Village Pali, Tehsil Weir,
District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 205141).
4. Gajendra Singh Son Of Jiya Lal, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of Vpo Newara, Tehsil Bhusawar, District
Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 205334).
5. Surendra Singh Son Of Atar Singh, Aged About 31 Years,
Resident Of Village Barbara, Post Luhasha, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Raj. (Roll No. 202915).
6. Rohitash Singh Son Of Chandan Singh, Aged About 47
Years, Resident Of Village Ajan, Tehsil Kumher, District
Bharatpur (Raj (Roll No. 210090).
7. Pratibha Arya Daughter Of Virendra Singh, Aged About 40
Years, Resident Of Salimpur, Baroli Chhar, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 204948)
8. Phool Singh S/o Badri Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of Village Pura, Maloni Khurd, Tehsil Rupbas,
District Bharatpur (Raj. (Roll No. 201405).
9. Gambheer Singh Son Of Badan Singh, Aged About 46
Years, Resident Of Village Nagla, Birharu, Tehsil Kumher,
District Bharatpur (Raj. (Roll No. 202672).
10. Kaptan Singh Son Dharam Singh, Aged About 46 Years,
Resident Of Suraj Bagh Colony, Tehsil Kaman, District
Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 201221).
11. Pooja Daughter Of Vijay Singh, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Village Basua, Post Bansi Khurd, Tehsil
Bharatpur, District Bharatpur (Roll No. 205070).
12. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 849/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
(3 of 9) [SAW-840/2022]
Secondary Education, Department Of Education,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And
Administrative Reforms, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Sameer Pratap Singh S/o Shyam Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Quarter No. 8, Telecom Colony, Bsnl, Rajendra
Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.).
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 856/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And
Administrative Reforms, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Ravindra Kumar S/o Badri Singh, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o V And P Jharkai, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur
(Raj.)
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 858/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And
Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Director, Education Secondary, Through Its Principal
(4 of 9) [SAW-840/2022]
Secretary, Secondary Education, Department Of
Education, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Neha D/o Devendra Singh Kuntal, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Ward 43, Surajmal Nagar, Near Kendriya Vidhyalaya,
Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. Jai Singh Kuntal S/o Girraj Singh Kuntal, Aged About 36
Years, R/o V And P Abhorra, Tehsil Kumher, District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
3. Bhanwar Singh S/o Ratan Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o Village Khanpur, Post Jharoti, Tehsil Bhusawar Distt.
Bharatpur (Raj.)
4. Lokendra Chaudhary S/o Kamal Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o V And P Januthar, Tehsil Deeg District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
5. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Thorugh
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 860/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secreatry, Department Of Personnel And
Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Ashiwani Singh S/o Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village Dayawali, Post Kakhanpur, Tehsil Nadbai,
District Bharatpur (Raj.)
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 863/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Department Of Education,
(5 of 9) [SAW-840/2022]
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Principal Secretary Department Of Personnel And
Administrative Reforms, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Dharmendra Singh Choudhary S/o Shyam Singh
Choudhary, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village And Post
Katara, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.).
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 870/2022
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Secondary Education, Department Of Education, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And
Administartive Reforms, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Directorate, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Neeraj Kumari S/o Shyam Singh, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o V And P Katara, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur
(Raj.)
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 873/2022
The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Chandresh Thanua Daughter Of Shri Kripal Singh Thanua,
Aged About 45 Years, Resident Of Dhankar Bhawan,
Basan Gate, Bharatpur District, District Bharatpur (Roll
No.205858)
(6 of 9) [SAW-840/2022]
2. Ajay Foujdar Son Of Vijay Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
Resident Of 59, Krishna Nagar, Bharatpur District
Bharatpur (Roll No.210382)
3. Yashpal Singh Son Of Laxman Singh, Aged About 42
Years, Resident Of Village Shahpur, Post Bahatana, Tehsil
Deeg, District Bharatpur (Roll No.21370).
4. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 877/2022
The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Madan Lal Son Of Narayan Singh, Aged About 47 Years,
Resident Of Village Bandha Chouth, Post Nigohi Tehsil
Deeg, District Bharatpur (Raj.). (Roll No. 206044)
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Its Secretary.
----Respondents
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 878/2022
State Of Rajasthan, Through Joint Secretary, Department Of
Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant
Versus
1. Arun Singh S/o Shri Niranjan Singh, Aged About 41 Years,
R/o Nagla Hathipura, Post Pipla, Tehsil And District
Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Mohar Singh S/o Shri Maharaj Singh, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Bandha Chauth, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur
(Raj.)
3. Hushiyar Singh S/o Shri Barat Singh, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Mehrawar, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur
(Raj.)
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through
Secretary.
----Respondents
(7 of 9) [SAW-840/2022]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Senior Advocate-
cum-Advocate General assisted by Mr.
Mirza Faisal Baig
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with
Mr. Akshit Gupta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
17/11/2022
By way of these intra court appeals, the State is challenging
the validity of the judgment dated 15.12.2021, whereby the
learned Single Judge while quashing the letter/clarification dated
17.05.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel has issued
directions to grant benefit of reservation in all the recruitment
process, wherein the result has been revised and complete
vacancies, as advertised, have not been filled-up till date
irrespective the date of result. It has further been directed that in
those cases, where the result has been revised and application for
change of category has been invited by the Department and
option thereof has been exercised by the candidates, the benefit
of reservation would be granted to those candidates.
Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate-cum-Advocate
General has submitted that though the State Government has
decided to grant benefit of reservation in the OBC category to the
Jat community of Bharatpur and Dholpur District, however, it was
decided that in the on-going recruitment process, particularly
where, some of the appointments have been made, the said
benefits of reservation cannot be granted to the above referred
community because it may lead to anomaly to the effect that the
(8 of 9) [SAW-840/2022]
appointments already granted to the candidates in the OBC
category likely to be disturbed. It is argued that the learned Single
Judge while issuing the directions, referred above, has not taken
into consideration this aspect of the matter and erred in directing
to extend the benefit of reservation to all those recruitment which
were not even questioned in the present matter.
It is further submitted by the learned Advocate General that
dealing with similar situation in the cases of Economically Weaker
Section, the Single Judge of this Court in Surendra Singh Rathore
Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2021 WLC 354 has rejected
similar contention and upheld the action of the State Government,
wherein the benefit of reservation to the Economically Weaker
Section has been denied in on-going recruitment selection. It is
also submitted that the judgment cited above has been affirmed
by the Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court, Principal Seat at
Jodhpur vide judgment dated 20th of July, 2020.
Learned Advocate General has further submitted that the
urgency of mentioning these matters is occurred on account of the
fact that some of the respondents have filed contempt petitions
before this Court complaining that the directions given by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order have not been
complied with and in those contempt petitions, notices have been
issued, therefore, it is prayed that while issuing notice to the
respondents, the effect and operation of the order passed by the
learned Single Judge may kindly be stayed.
Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel appearing for some of the
respondents in some appeals has argued that the learned Single
Judge while taking into consideration the fact that granting benefit
of reservation in on-going recruitment process will not create any
(9 of 9) [SAW-840/2022]
anomaly and taking into consideration the fact that in the case of
Most Backward Class, the State Government has already extended
the benefit of reservation in the on-going process and, therefore,
directions given by the learned Single Judge are not liable to be
interfered with.
At this stage, learned A.G. has submitted that the contempt
petitions are filed on behalf of the candidates, who appeared in
the Physical Instructors Recruitment Process.
Issue notice.
Mr. Vigyan Shah is appearing as caveator on behalf of
respondent No.1 in SAW Nos.841/2022 and 849/2022 and
respondent No.4 in SAW No.858/2022 and for respondent Nos.1
and 3 in SAW No.878/2022.
Let notice be issued to the remaining respondents in all the
appeals, returnable on 19th of December, 2022.
In the meantime, the directions given by the learned Single
Judge in the impugned judgment to grant benefit of reservation in
all the recruitment process and in those recruitment process
where the result has been revised and application for change of
category has been invited, shall remain stayed.
The respondents are permitted to move application for
vacation of interim stay order by filing necessary response to the
appeals.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J
Babulal/5-16
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
