Shivraj Meena vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 12521 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15629/2022 Hemraj S/o Nandlal Bheel, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Purana Choraya, Village And Post Mandawar, Tehsil Asnawar, District Jhalawar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15630/2022

Shyam Sunder Gour S/o Narsi Lal, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Jambhsawar Chok, Ward No. 10, Nokha, Tehsil Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15637/2022

Parvati Swarnkar D/o Ram Chandra Swarnkar W/o Late Shri Rajmal Swarnkar, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Mangri Ka Mohalla, Ghayan Ji Ka Chock, Vpo Gangapur, Tehsil Gangapur, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2.     Additional     Commissioner,            Rural       Development      And


                                     (2 of 18)                    [CW-15629/2022]

Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15660/2022

Rughnatha Ram S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village And Post Ranodar, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalore (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15662/2022

Shashi Kant Ameta S/o Pinakin Ameta, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village Dhanganmau Kala, Post Boraw, Tehsil Rawatbhata, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Baran, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15663/2022

1. Badri Prasad Lakhara S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad Lakhara, Aged About 36 Years, R/o 261, Lakharo Ka Bas, Khinwsar, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

2. Shahbaz Khan S/o Abdul Rauf Khan, Aged About 41 Years, R/oj Near Old Post Office, Ward No. 5, Parbatsar, Tehsil Parbatsar, District Nagaur (Raj.).

                                                              ----Petitioners
                               Versus



                                     (3 of 18)                       [CW-15629/2022]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Nagaur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15666/2022

Mubarique Khan Sindhi S/o Mohammad Khan Sindhi, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Ramdevara Gali, Village And Post Kuraj, Tehsil Railmagra, District Rajsamand (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14287/2022

Kamlesh Kumar S/o Kailash Chand Balai, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village Saroth, Vai Jawaja, Tehsil Bheem, District Rajsamand (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Zila Parishad Udaipur, Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Udaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14912/2022

Vimla Malviya D/o Mangilal Ji W/o Kushpal Bunkar, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Baba Ram Dev Mandir, Ghatol, District Banswara (Raj.).

                                                               ----Petitioner
                               Versus



                                     (4 of 18)                    [CW-15629/2022]

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Banswara, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15035/2022

Savita D/o Sardar Singh, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village Sukhavas, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dungarpur (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14625/2022

Shivraj Meena S/o Shri Ghudaya Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Dundayapura, Post Jakhoda, Tehsil Sapotra, District Karauli.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jalore, District Jalore.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15161/2022

Heena Kumari Meena W/o Shri Hari Kumar Meena, Aged About 29 Years, Khadipur, Sukhpura, Tehsil Bijoliya, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Chife Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

                                     (5 of 18)                    [CW-15629/2022]



                                                            ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15206/2022

Amar Singh S/o Shri Brakh Bhan Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Village Barai, Tehsil Baseri, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dholpur, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15225/2022

Chandra Shekhar Sharma S/o Raghuveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of 101-102, Srinath Nagar, Peacock Hills, Teetradi, District Udaipur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Zila Parishad Dungarpur, Through Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dungarpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15343/2022

Subhash Chandra S/o Rati Ram, Aged About 45 Years, Village And Post Mahpalwas, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15357/2022

Chand Mal Khatik S/o Bhagwan Lal Khatik, Aged About 41

(6 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

Years, R/o Khatiko Ka Mohalla, Dungla, Tehsil Dungla, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15453/2022

Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Velji Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Jhariyana, Tehsil Aaspur, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15454/2022

Mamkori D/o Rampratap, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 18, Village And Post Chak 24 As-C, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                         (7 of 18)                   [CW-15629/2022]


                                                                ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15466/2022 Deepka Kumar Jain S/o Madan Lal Jain, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Village And Post Baroda, Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Additional Commissioner, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Alwar, Rajasthan.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15509/2022 Seema Devi D/o Shri Milakhraj, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Village 60 F, Tehsil Srikaranpur, District Sri Ganganagar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. District Collector, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).

3. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Hanumangarh (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pawan Singh.

Mr. Manish Patel.

Mr. R.S. Mankad.

Mr. O.P. Kumawat.

Mr. Ramesh Kumar.

Mr. R.C. Joshi.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG.

Mr. Kunal Upadhyay.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order 19/10/2022

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners

aggrieved against exclusion of their names from the list of

(8 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

candidates, who have been called for document verification

pursuant to the LDC Recruitment 2013.

It is inter-alia indicated in the petition that the recruitment

was initiated by various Zila Parishads for which the last date of

making application was 22.03.2013, which was extended to

18.04.2013.

The petitioners applied pursuant to the said advertisement

and as they were in merit, they were called for document

verification in the year 2015, however, at the relevant time, the

petitioners could not appear for document verification due to

unavoidable circumstances.

Now, on account of various directions issued by this Court,

the respondents for the purpose of filling up the 4000 vacant posts

pursuant to Recruitment, 2013 have issued list of wait listed

candidates, wherein, in few petitions, name of the petitioners were

included in the provisional waiting list but were excluded in the

final list and in some cases their names have been totally

excluded.

A prayer has been made in the petitions that the concerned

Zila Parishad be directed to include their names in the list of

candidates, called for document verification in relation to the

available vacant post pursuant to Recruitment - 2013, as they are

higher in merit than the candidates, who have been called for

document verification by the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that

the action of the respondents in issuing the list of candidates

called for document verification by excluding them, is not justified,

as the petitioners are having more marks than the candidates,

who have been called for document verification.

(9 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

Further submissions have been made that the respondents,

in the past also, when they did not permit candidates like

petitioners i.e. who could not appear for document verification

when they were called in the year 2015, had approached this

Court by filing petitions led by Babita Choudhary Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP No.16318/2017, decided on

11.12.2017, which followed judgment in Brijesh Kumari Vs. State

of Rajasthan & Ors.:SBCWP No.18992/2017, decided on

08.11.2017 at Jaipur Bench, wherein, in a recruitment for the post

of Teacher Grade III the Court had directed the respondents that

they should give one more opportunity to the petitioners to come

forward for their document verification and it was made clear that

the said direction was only with regard to the document

verification of the petitioners, who were prevented from appearing

on the earlier given date. Pursuant thereto, the respondents had

issued a circular dated 29.05.2018 (Annex.7 in SBCWP

No.15629/2022), wherein, all the Zila Parishads were directed to

comply with the directions given by the Court, as the special

appeal filed by the State being DBSAW No.550/2018: State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Babita Choudhary had been dismissed on

12.03.2018.

Learned AAG appearing for the State made submissions that

the petitioners are not entitled to any relief, inasmuch as, the

petitioners when called for document verification pursuant to the

Recruitment - 2013, at relevant time despite being aware of the

said aspect, choose not to appear for document verification and,

therefore, having missed the bus at the relevant time, now they

cannot seek consideration of their candidature pertaining to

Recruitment - 2013 at such a belated stage, wherein, on account

(10 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

of the directions given by this Court for the post which remained

vacant pursuant to the Recruitment - 2013 are sought to be filled

up by the respondents from the wait listed candidates and,

therefore, the petitions deserve dismissal.

Submissions were also made that the respondents while

preparing the list of candidates, who have been called for

document verification have excluded the candidates, who have

obtained higher marks than the previous cut-off, those who

remained absent for document verification in the past, those who

were ineligible and such candidates who had joined in other

district pursuant to the Recruitment - 2013, which exclusion by

the respondents is justified in the circumstances of the case and,

therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.

Further submissions were made that in the case of Brijesh

Kumari (supra), the candidates were prevented for certain specific

reasons/they were unaware of the fact that they were called for

document verification, whereas, in the present case, the

petitioners were well aware for having been called for document

verification at the relevant time and, therefore, on that count also,

the petitions deserve dismissal.

Learned AAG further made submissions that in case, the

candidates like the present petitioners are permitted, who were

there in the merit list issued in the year 2015 pursuant to the

advertisement, the same would result in serious complications,

inasmuch as, they would claim their rights based on their merit as

obtained in the year 2013 & 2015, which would be unjust to the

candidates, who have joined pursuant to their recruitment in the

year 2013 / 2015 and on that count also, the petitioners are not

entitled to any relief.

(11 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

Learned counsel for the petitioners in response to the

submissions made by learned AAG made submissions that the

order in the case of Babita Choudhary (supra) and in several other

orders, which followed the order in the case of Brijesh Kumari

(supra) i.e. Jiya Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP

No.10796/2018, decided on 25.07.2018 & Jitendra Kumar Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors.: SBCWP no.9949/2019, decided on

15.10.2019 and several other cases, wherein, the candidates had

approached this Court for permission, got their documents

verified, in none of the cases any special reason was indicated for

non-appearance at the time of earlier document verification, still

they were permitted to appear for document verification and the

respondents therein were directed to permit participation in the

selection process and, therefore, the plea sought to be raised by

the respondents with regard to restricting the order in the case of

Babita Choudhary (supra) has no substance.

Further submissions have been made that so far as the issue

raised pertaining to claim of the petitioners as per their merit, in

case, they are accorded appointment, the petitioners are prepared

to be placed below all those candidates, who already stands

appointed prior to the issuance of the Circular dated 07.09.2022

(Annex.8) in SBCWP No.15629/2022, pursuant to which, the

respondents are undertaking exercise of according appointments

on the posts which have remained vacant pursuant to the

Recruitment - 2013.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

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

As already noticed, the recruitment was initiated way back in

the year 2013 and for various reasons, the process remained

(12 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

pending. Ultimately, apparently on account of passing of the order

dated 04.05.2022 and 26.05.2022 in SBCWP No.17700/2018 by

this Court, the respondents issued Circular dated 07.09.2022 for

the purpose of filling up about 4000 vacancies, which remained

vacant pursuant to Recruitment - 2013.

For the purpose of filling up the said posts, the various Zila

Parishads issued provisional waiting list of the candidates and

called for objections.

After objections were filed, final list was published by the Zila

Parishads. At some Zila Parishad like Zila Parishad, Bikaner, the

provisional list included candidates like petitioners, who though

were in the merit, in the list published prior to the exercise

initiated by Circular dated 07.09.2022 but did not participate in

the exercise for document verification.

However, in the final list issued of the candidates, who were

called for document verification, the list was amended and while

amending the list, it was inter-alia indicated as under:-

"mDr izrh{kk lwph esa bl ftys dh iwoZ Js.khokj p;u

dV-vkWQ ls vf/kd izkIrkad] iwoZ esa nLrkost lR;kiu gsrq vuqifLFkr jgs] vik= Ikk;s x;s o ,sls vH;FkhZ ftuds }kjk mDr HkrhZ vUrxZr vU; ftyksa es dk;Zxzg.k dj fy;k x;k gS] mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dks "kkfey ugha fd;k x;k gSaA "

From the indication made, it is apparent that the candidates

like petitioners, who could not appear /did not appear in the

document verification prior to the exercise initiated by Circular

dated 07.09.2022, their names were excluded.

It is indicated that in certain Zila Parishads in the first

instance in the provisional list itself, names of candidates like the

(13 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

petitioners were excluded, which has led to filing of the present

petitions.

Insofar as, the exclusion of candidates, who were found

ineligible at the time of document verification prior to exercise

initiated pursuant to Circular dated 07.09.2022 and those who had

already joined at other districts, no fault can be found to the said

exclusion.

Insofar as, the candidates, who had obtained higher marks

than the earlier cut-off as well as those who remained absent from

the earlier document verification, the plea sought to be raised by

the State essentially already stands concluded by various orders /

determinations made by this Court.

In the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra), which matter

pertained to the post of Teacher Grade III and, wherein, also a

similar situation had arisen, a Coordinate Bench of this Court

inter-alia came to the following conclusion:-

"The appointments, which were made in the year 2015, were only on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates, when minimum qualifying marks are 60% in RTET.

All the petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions, are the candidates who are claiming to be in the select list as per the second revised list, which has been issued in October, 2017 and they have to appear for document verification before the Zila Parishad concerned.

The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds in some of the cases, which were beyond control of the candidates, which prevented them from appearing on the stipulated date before the Zila Parishad concerned. Learned counsel for the parties have pointed out that in some of the cases, the person concerned was not keeping well, the

(14 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

lady delivered the child and there were many other compelling circumstances.

The Court finds that since all the petitioners are claiming themselves in the selected list and they were having more marks than the last cutoff marks declared in their respective category in the revised result, they deserve indulgence and the Court deems it proper to grant them one more opportunity to produce their documents for verification before the Zila Parishad concerned. Though, the Selection Process is already delayed, yet considering the fact that the Department itself has issued the notice to the different candidates and also uploaded on the web-site, no harm would be caused to the Department, if in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to these candidates.

The Court without expressing any opinion about the rival submissions of the parties about requirement of sending the personal intimation to the candidates, suffice it to say that candidates are also required to remain vigilant about the entire recruitment process and official web-site is always available to them to see the developments which take place from time to time.

In view of the above, the present batch of writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents and Zila Parishad concerned that they should give one more opportunity to the petitioners to come forward for their document verification. It is made clear that said direction is only with regard to the document verification of the petitioners who were prevented from appearing on the early dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned. It is also made clear that mere verification of document will not confer any right in favour of the petitioners to claim appointment, however, if the petitioners are finding their name/place in the merit or they are otherwise found suitable, their case will accordingly be considered for appointment in accordance with law. It is further directed that the

(15 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

petitioners will appear before the Zila Parishad concerned either on 16th or 17th November, 2017 for document verification and the Zila Parishad concerned will verify their documents, when they appear either of the date i.e. 16th or 17th November, 2017.

Accordingly all the writ petitions are disposed of. Stay applications also stand closed."

Following the analogy in the case of Brijesh Kumari (supra),

a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Babita Choudhary

(supra), granted the same relief as granted in the case of Brijesh

Kumari. The matter was taken to the Division Bench, wherein, as

noticed, the Special Appeal was dismissed, whereafter, in the case

of Jiya Devi (supra) and Jitendra Kumar (supra), besides several

other cases, the relief pertaining to the LDC Recruitment - 2013

was granted by this Court.

So far as the submissions made that in the case of Brijesh

Kumari (supra) the issue was confined to those who were

prevented for reasons beyond their control at the time of

document verification and as the petitioners cannot claim to be

unaware of the requirement of getting the documents verified and

have given a very evasive/cursory reason regarding non-

appearance at the relevant time and, therefore, they are not

entitled for any relief is concerned, a perusal of the order in the

case of Brijesh Kumari (supra) indicates that the said aspect was

available only in some of the cases and in other cases, the

availability of reasons is not indicated. However, a look at the

order in the case of Jiya Devi (supra) and Jitendra (supra) shows

that no reason, whatsoever, has been noticed by the Court so as

to confine the determination made to those, who were unaware of

the fact that the document verification was being undertaken and,

(16 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

therefore, the plea raised by the respondents in this regard cannot

be accepted.

The Circular issued by the State pertaining to the present

recruitment after dismissal of special appeal in the case of Babita

Choudhary (supra), inter-alia reads as under:-

"mDr izdj.k foHkkxh; LVasf.Mx desVh dh cSBd fnukWd 24-05-2018 esa j[kk tkus ij desVh }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; dh ikyuk dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA vr ,sls izdj.k ftuesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk varfje / vafre vkns"k tkjh fd;k x;k gS] mUgsa daLkhMj fd;k tkuk visf{kr gSA ;kfpdkFkhZ ds dfu'B fyfid lh/kh HkrhZ 2013 ds varxZr o'kZ 2013 dh dVvkWQ esa LFkku j[kus] vU;Fkk ik= gksus ,oa lacaf/kr Js.kh esa in miyC/k gksus ij p;u / fu;qfDr dh dk;Zokgh ij fu;ekuqlkj fopkj fd;k tkosaA vr ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izdj.kksa esa ftyk ifj'kn~ }kjk foHkkxh; funsZ"kksa dh ikyuk esa Mh-ch- vihy nk;j dh xbZ gS] rks mUgsa lacaf/kr izHkkjh vf/kdkjh ds ek/;e ls okil fy;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh rRdky fd;k tkuk lqfuf"pr djkosasA mDr fu.kZ;ksa ds dze esa vfoyEc ikyuk dh dk;Zokgh dh tkosa] rkfd leLr U;kf;d / voekuuk izdj.kksa dk fuLrkj.k gks ldsA"

The indications made in the Circular dated 29.05.2018,

wherein, those who had approached the Court were directed to be

considered has also not confined the same to any specific

category. The very fact that the respondents on account of

passing of the orders by Court, decided to comply with the

directions irrespective of the indication made by the candidate for

non-appearance at the relevant time, the same now cannot be put

(17 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

as the basis for denying those candidates from participating in the

exercise for document verification and seek appointment.

The submission made is essentially contrary to the general

principle, wherein, the respondent/employer would always like to

have candidates, who are higher in merit.

Admittedly, the petitioners are higher in merit from the

candidates, who have now been called for document verification

and, therefore, to deny the said candidates now to appear for

document verification and seek appointment cannot be

countenanced.

So far as the plea raised pertaining to the petitioners making

any claim against those already appointed prior to the Circular

dated 07.09.2022 is concerned, the submissions made by the

counsel for the petitioners have already been recorded, by which

they are bound and the said aspect would need consideration as

and when the situation arises.

In view of the above discussion, the petitions filed by the

petitioners are allowed. The respondents - State is directed to

permit the petitioners to participate in the document verification

pursuant to the exercise initiated in terms of Circular dated

07.09.2022 at the respective Zila Parishads, in case, their names

have appeared in the merit list and they have obtained marks

more than the cut-off of the candidates, who have now been

called for document verification.

Further, in view of the fact that several other candidates,

similarly placed to the petitioners, who could not/did not appear

during the course of document verification at earlier stages and

have obtained marks more than the cut-off of the candidates, who

have been called for document verification now by the

(18 of 18) [CW-15629/2022]

respondents pursuant to Circular dated 07.09.2022 and have

raised objections in this regard with the respondents, with a view

to obviate the requirement of similarly placed candidates to

approach this Court for similar relief and to ensure that the

recruitment, which is even otherwise delayed by about 10 years,

now is concluded expeditiously, it would be required of the

respondents to afford opportunity to such candidates as well to

appear for document verification i.e. those whose name appeared

in the merit list issued earlier and they could not / did not appear

for document verification and have marks more than the present

cut-off and have raised objections to the provisional merit list

issued by the respondents. For the said purpose, the State might

issue an advertisement in the daily newspaper throughout the

State requiring the said candidates to appear for document

verification on a date to be fixed by the State in this regard.

(ARUN BHANSALI),J 126, 127, 128, 147, 148, 149, 150, 197, 210, 216, 200, 225, 227, 230, 250, 255, 283, 284, 288 & 292,-

Pradeep Limba/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)