Banwarilal vs Rajasthan Public Service ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 12303 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15160/2022

Banwarilal S/o Shri Birda Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village Surpura, Post Malamsingh Ki Sid, Tehsil Bap, District Jodhpur.

----Petitioner Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi.

Mr. Vivek Firoda.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General through VC.

Mr. K.S. Lodha.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 14/10/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3), whereby the petitioner

has been debarred from appearing in the examinations conducted

by the Commission permanently.

It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that petitioner had

appeared in the examinations-2013 for the post of Junior

Accountant in the year 2015. The examination conducted was

investigated by Special Operations Group (SOG) and a charge-

sheet came to be filed in 2015 (Annex.2), wherein the

investigation against the petitioner was kept pending under

Section 173(8) Cr.P.C.

On 3.2.2016, the respondent RPSC, without issuing any

notice to the petitioner by observing that it was brought to the

notice of the Commission that the petitioner has used unfair

(2 of 6) [CW-15160/2022]

means and a charge-sheet has been filed, copy whereof has been

forwarded to the RPSC, the Full Commission in its meeting dated

25.2.2016 has decided on debarred candidates like petitioner

permanently and consequently, the petitioner is debarred

permanently.

Whereafter, the SOG has filed supplementary charge-sheet

in the year 2019, wherein also the investigation against the

petitioner has been kept pending.

It is further indicated in the petition that since the passing of

the order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3), the petitioner filled up

application forms pertaining to various examinations four times

and every time on account of passing of the order dated 2.3.2016,

the candidature of the petitioner was rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that so

far, charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been filed and in

the two charge-sheets only investigation against the petitioner has

been shown as pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., despite

passage of over 7 years, since the examinations were held in the

year 2015.

Further submissions have been made that the order

impugned dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3) was passed by indicating that

a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, which is

factually incorrect and that before passing of the order impugned,

no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the

nature of order which has been passed, is drastic in so far as the

petitioner is concerned, inasmuch as he has been debarred

forever.

Further submissions have been made that similar nature of

orders, which were passed qua the other candidates have already

(3 of 6) [CW-15160/2022]

been quashed and set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court

in Smt. Renu Gupta Vs. RPSC Ajmer : SBCWP No. 17128/2015

decided on 12/13.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, which has been

followed in SBCWP No.10921/2016 : Sharwan Kumar Bishnoi Vs.

RPSC, Ajmer decided on 27.9.2022 and, therefore, the order

impugned dated 2.3.2016 qua the petitioner deserves to be

quashed and set aside.

Submissions have also been made that petitioner has applied

for the post of School Lecturer (School Education) and the

examinations are scheduled to be held tomorrow and, therefore,

RPSC be directed to issue admit-card to the petitioner and permit

him to appear in the examination.

RPSC appeared on caveat, copy of the petition was supplied

and reply to the petition has been filed.

Learned AG made submissions that irrespective of the fact

that the claim made by the petitioner regarding similar nature

matters having been decided by this Court, the petitioner is not

entitled to relief as the petitioner has approached this Court with

unexplained delay as the order was passed way back in the year

2016 and despite the fact that petitioner suffered rejection of his

candidature four times in the past, he has chosen to question the

validity of the order after passage of over 6 years and has filed

the petition in the nick of moment, which petition deserves to be

dismissed on that count alone.

Reliance has been placed on State of Orissa Vs. Mamata

Mohanty : 2011 (3) SCC 436.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

(4 of 6) [CW-15160/2022]

The facts are not in dispute, wherein in the two charge-

sheets filed by the SOG over a period of 7 years, no charge-sheet

has been filed against the petitioner, rather the investigation has

been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The order dated

2.3.2016 (Annex.3) as noticed hereinbefore, proceeds on the

assumption that the charge-sheet has been filed against the

petitioner, which is factually incorrect.

Further this is also a fact that the petitioner was not

afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order

dated 2.3.2016 debarring him for life from appearing in any of the

examinations to be conducted by the RPSC. Similar nature orders,

which were passed qua other candidates without affording any

opportunity of hearing came to be set aside by an exhaustive

order in the case of Smt. Renu Gupta (supra) leaving it open for

the RPSC to hold enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to

the candidates therein.

The only objection which has been raised in relation to the

exercise of jurisdiction by this Court in the present case, despite

the fact that the issue is squarely covered by order in the case of

Smt. Renu Gupta (supra) is on the ground of delay on part of the

petitioner.

The Supreme Court in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra)

came to the conclusion that the mere fact that in similar nature

matters, relief has been granted by the Court cannot furnish

proper explanation for delay and laches and a litigant cannot wake

up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgments in

cases where some diligent person had approached the Court

within a reasonable time.

(5 of 6) [CW-15160/2022]

There is no dispute about the law as laid down by Hon'ble

Supreme Court, however, as noticed hereinbefore, the facts of the

present case are too glaring for this Court to refuse exercise of

jurisdiction merely on account of delay in approaching this Court.

As noticed, the order has been passed with the assumption that

the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, which

aspect is factually incorrect. In the two charge-sheets filed over a

period of 7 years from the lodging of the FIR, the investigation

against the petitioner remains pending and he has been debarred

for life without affording any opportunity of hearing. Similarly

placed candidates, even against whom charge-sheet infact was

filed, have succeeded in getting the orders set aside and,

therefore, it would be too unjust not to exercise jurisdiction in the

present case and deprive the petitioner from appearing in the

ensuing examination.

It is true that the RPSC in permitting the petitioner in the

exam scheduled tomorrow would be inconvenienced, however, as

the circumstances of the case are such that the petitioner is

entitled to relief, the RPSC must do the needful.

In view of the above discussions, the petition filed by the

petitioner is allowed. The order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3) is

quashed and set aside, the respondent RPSC is directed to issue

the admit card to the petitioner for appearance in the examination

for School Lecturer (School Education) Examination-2022

scheduled to be held tomorrow and permit him to appear in the

examination.

It goes without saying that RPSC would be free to proceed

afresh after following the principles of natural justice.

(6 of 6) [CW-15160/2022]

The order has been passed in the presence of counsel for the

RPSC, though the copy will be issued today itself, the RPSC should

not wait for the certified copy of the order, and do the needful.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 128-sumer/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)