Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mukesh Kumar Sablaniya And Anr vs State Of Rajasthan And Anr. ... on 17 February, 2023
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2023/RJJD/005850]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3090/2018
1. Mukesh Kumar Sablaniya S/o Shri Radhey Shyam
Sablaniya, Aged about 37 years, B/c- Regar, C/o Tilak
Nagar, Udaimandir, District- Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Ramesh Kumar Jaltharia S/o Shri Gordhan Lal Jaltharia,
B/c- Regar, C/o Tilak Nagar, Udaimandir, District- Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Personal, Government Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. M.L. Deora
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Punia
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
17/02/2023
The case comes up on an application (01/2023) preferred by
the respondents for early listing.
The same is not opposed by the learned counsel for the
petitioner.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ
petition itself is being taken up for hearing at this stage.
The brief facts of the case are as under:
The petitioners applied in pursuance to the advertisement
dated 26.07.2013 (Annex.-1) for the post of Lower Division Clerk
Grade II. The petitioners herein belong to the SC and ST category
[2023/RJJD/005850] (2 of 3) [CW-3090/2018]
and therefore, they applied in the said category. After the
declaration of the result the petitioners were not declared qualified
and therefore, the present writ petition was filed on the ground
that the minimum qualifying marks as advertised ought to have
been relaxed as sufficient number of SC and ST category
candidates were not available and posts remain unfilled.
During the pendency of the present writ petitions similar
matters came up before this Court and ultimately vide judgment
dated 27.04.2018 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ
No.1666/2017; Babal Devi Meena v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors., it was directed that the petitioners be awarded grace marks
and if anyone of them stands in merit after awarding the same
and is otherwise eligible for appointment, he should be
recommended for appointment. In pursuance to the directions
issued in Babal Devi Meena's case (supra), the State Government
proceeded on to award the required grace marks to the
candidates and a new provisional result was issued on 15.03.2019
whereby, the list of the selected candidates after awarding of
grace marks was issued.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners
himself vide rejoinder that petitioner No.2 out of the present
petitioners has been selected vide the revised result.
The submission of the counsel for the petitioners now is that
the notification dated 18.04.2018 issued by the Government of
Rajasthan has since come in existence and therefore, the same be
applied to the remaining of the petitioners and they be granted
the relaxation as provided in the said notification.
[2023/RJJD/005850] (3 of 3) [CW-3090/2018]
Admittedly, the present recruitment relates back tothe
advertisement dated 26.07.2013 and the notification, the
petitioners are relying upon at this stage, is of the year 2018. The
same cannot, under any law or provision, be applied to the
recruitment of the 2013. No notification can be said to have
retrospective application as the same would conclude into a new
series of litigation. Even otherwise, it is the settled proposition of
law that any Notification or Circular of a Government can be
deemed to have a retrospective effect only if the same has been
mentioned to be so in the notification / circular itself, otherwise
not.
In view of the above observations, the present writ petition
is dismissed as having become infructuous against the petitioner
No.2 who had been selected in the revised list and is dismissed
qua the petitioner No.1 i.e. who had not been selected in
pursuance to the revised result
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
121-/Vivek/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
