Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Danaram Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan on 15 December, 2023

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

                                    (1 of 8)                    [CW-12182/2019]


     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                          JODHPUR
           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12182/2019

Rajkumar S/o Shri Yadram, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of
Village/post Mundiya, Tehsil Todabhim, District Karauli.
                                                      ----Petitioner
                              Versus
1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
        Department Of Women And Child Development,
        Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.      The Director, Directorate, Integrated Child Development
        Services, 2 Janpath, Gandhi Nagar, Jaipur.
3.      The Deputy Director (Administration), Integrated Child
        Development Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4.      The Deputy Director, Women And Child Development
        Department, Banswara.
5.      The Child Development Project Officer, Women And Child
        Development Department, Chhoti Sarwan, District
        Banswara.
6.      Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection
        Board, State Institute Of Agriculture Management
        Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur Through Its Secretary.
                                                  ----Respondents
                             Connected With
1. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6979/2019
2. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11836/2019
3. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11838/2019
4. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12005/2019
5. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12168/2019
6. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16142/2019
7. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10111/2020
8. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12871/2021


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. KR Saran
For Respondent(s)        :     Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC a/w
                               Mr. Gaurav Ranka
                               Mr. Manish Patel a/w
                               Mr. Kuldeep Singh Solanki



     HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

15/12/2023

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy

though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore,

(2 of 8) [CW-12182/2019]

for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts

and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12182/2019, while treating the same as

a lead case; thus, the rival submissions of the parties and the

observations of the Court, in the present order, would also be

based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.

1.1 The prayer clauses read as under:-

"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioner may kindly be allowed:-

(i) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the impugned order dated 08.01.2019 (Annexure-7), passed by the respondent authorities may kindly be declared illegal and be quashed & set-aside.

(ii) By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to issue permission and No Objection Certificate (NOC) in favour of the petitioners for participation in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Pre Primary Education Teacher in pursuance to advertisement dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure-4).

(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner.

(iv) Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."

2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court, by

counsel for the petitioner, are that the petitioner was initially

appointed on the post of Pre Primary Education Teacher in the

year 2012 and was given appointment at Anganwadi Center-Dairy

Second, Gram Panchayat - Nadiya (Chotisarwan), District-

Bhanswara vide order dated 24.12.2012, whereafter upon

completion of two years, the petitioner was made permanent on

the said post.

(3 of 8) [CW-12182/2019]

2.1. Thereafter, in the year 2018, the Rajasthan Subordinate and

Ministerial Services Selection Board, Jaipur issued advertisement

no. 15/2018 dated 21.08.2018 for recruitment on the post of Pre

Primary Education Teacher and a total of 1310 posts were

advertised. Since the petitioner was already working on the said

post, permission was sought from the respondent authorities so as

to enable the petitioner to apply for the same post in pursuance of

the aforesaid recruitment process.

2.2. Subsequently, the petitioner was verbally told to fill the

application form since the petitioner's case for granting permission

had been referred to the higher authorities and the same would

take time, whereafter the petitioner filled the application form,

and thereafter, appeared in the written examination. During this

time, the petitioner again approached respondent no.5 with regard

to the grant of permission, however was told that vide the

impugned order dated 08.01.2019, a decision had been taken not

to allow the petitioner and other similarly situated persons to

participate in the aforesaid recruitment process.

2.3. Thereafter, the petitioner's name was shown in the

provisional list of selected candidates for documents verification

on 31.07.2019 and the petitioner was to appear for documents

verification on 02.08.2019, however, the requisite No Objection

Certificate (NOC) was not being issued by the respondent

authorities for enabling participation of the petitioner in the

recruitment process of the year 2018. Thus, being aggrieved of

the impugned order dated 08.01.2019, petitioner has preferred

the present writ petition claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.

(4 of 8) [CW-12182/2019]

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even in the

year 2013, recruitment advertisement was issued for the post in

question, and the employees, who had been working on the post

of Pre Primary Education Teacher in various Anganwadis and

Projects, had sought permission to allow the petitioner to

participate in the recruitment process for the year 2013 and vide

order dated 04.04.2016, the respondent authorities had permitted

other similarly situated persons to do so, while not allowing the

petitioner to participate in the recruitment process of the year

2018, which is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.

3.1. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has

already appeared in the written examination, 2018 and was

verbally asked to fill the application form pending the decision of

higher authorities, and now that he has secured his roll number in

the provisional list, the respondent authorities have rejected the

petitioner's request in an arbitrary manner.

4.1. In furtherance, if the requisite NOC is not granted by the

respondent authorities to enable the petitioner to participate in

the said recruitment process and if petitioner's past service length

is not counted, then the entire past service length of the petitioner

would be forfeited.

4.2. In support of such submissions, learned counsel placed

reliance on the following judgments rendered by a Coordinate

Bench of this Hon'ble Court:

(a) Saroj & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 2490/2015, decided on 22.05.2015).

(b) Dhanraj Meena v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No. 12846/2017 decided on 15.01.2018).

(5 of 8) [CW-12182/2019]

(c) Praveen Kumar Yadav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP

9500/2007 decided on 24.08.2016)

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents,

while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the

petitioner, submits that a department level decision was taken for

not allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination for the

post in question and the same was informed vide the impugned

order; further, the petitioner had appeared in the written

examination without seeking due and prior permission from the

parent department.

5.1. Learned counsel further submits that the order of the year

2016 does not apply in the present controversy as therein the

teachers were working in the education department, however the

petitioner herein is working in the Anganwadi Centre and as such

both the departments and their working patterns are different.

5.2. Learned counsel also submits that if an old personnel is

again recruited on the same post of Pre Primary Education Teacher

then not only will it deprive the unemployed NTT candidates from

securing a job, but also the number of Pre Primary Education

Teacher in the tribal areas will decline creating a contrary effect on

the school and education, thus if previously selected and

employed teachers are again selected, then the entire purpose of

granting opportunity to the unemployed candidates will be

frustrated.

5.3. In furtherance, learned counsel submits that in the previous

recruitment process, 75 old working personnel were appointed on

the post of Pre Primary Education Teacher from TSP to Non-TSP

(6 of 8) [CW-12182/2019]

areas and due to the same, the number of teachers in tribal area

got declined.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the

record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

7. This Court observes that the petitioners were appointed on

the post of Pre Primary Education Teacher in the year 2012 and

completed the probation period in the year 2014 whereafter in the

year 2018, the respondents issued the aforesaid advertisement

pursuant to which the petitioners sought permission for applying

in the said recruitment process of the year 2018 and filled the

application forms, awaiting response of the respondent authorities

concerned; during this time, the petitioners appeared in the

written examination and secured the roll numbers in the

provisional list and were called for documents verification;

however the respondent vide impugned order rejected the

petitioners' application.

8. This Court also observes that the interim orders are

operating in the present writ petitions, except writ petition

No.6979/2019; the interim order dated 16.08.2019 passed in the

lead case is reproduced as hereunder:-

"It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that pursuant to the advertisement dated 21.8.2018 and stipulation contained therein, the petitioner after applying for permission from the department, applied pursuant to the said advertisement, however, by order dated 8.1.2019 (Annex.7), an administrative decision has been taken by the respondents not to accord permission in this regard.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the administrative decision is bad. It is further submitted that in the result declared by the respondent -

(7 of 8) [CW-12182/2019]

Board on 31.7.2019, the roll number of the petitioner has been reflect in the list of successful candidates and in absence of the permission, candidature of the petitioner would be rejected by the respondents.

In view of the submissions made, issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also, returnable within a period of three weeks.

Notices when issued be given 'dasti' to learned counsel for the petitioner.

In the meanwhile and till further orders, the respondents shall not reject the candidature of the petitioner, however, the petitioner shall not be accorded appointment by the respondents. Connect with SBCWP No.11836/2019."

9. This Court further observes that condition no.14 of the very

advertisement in question clearly stipulates that the persons who

are already employed as Pre Primary Education Teacher can

appear in the said examination after giving intimation of the same

to the concerned authorities; the said condition 14 is reproduced

as hereunder:

"vukifRr izek.k i= ds laca/k esa %& lHkh vkosnd tks igys ls gh ljdkjh ukSdjh esa gS ;k ljdkjh midzeksa esa fu;qDr gS] mUgsa vius fu;ksDrk dks bl ijh{kk ds fy, vkosnu i= izLrqr djus ls iwoZ gh fyf[kr esa lwfpr djrs gq, vkosnu djuk pkfg, A"

10. This Court also observes that the petitioners have submitted

applications for seeking permission for allowing their appearance

in the Pre Primary Education Teacher Direct Recruitment

Examination - 2018 and then appeared in the written

examination, whereafter on 31.07.2019, the petitioners have

secured their respective roll numbers in the provisional list and

were called for documents verification.

(8 of 8) [CW-12182/2019]

11. This Court also observes that the petitioners have made due

compliance of the aforementioned condition No.14 of the

advertisement in question. The petitioner clearly fell under the cut

off marks criteria and were accordingly, called for documents