Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kamlesh Kumar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 3 January, 2023

Bench: Vijay Bishnoi, Manoj Kumar Garg

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 98/2022

1. Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Venilal, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Mor, Tehsil Garhi, District - Banswara.

2. Mukesh Kumar Patidar S/o Shri Jagji Patidar, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Vpo Nogama, Tehsil Sagwara, District Dungarpur.

3. Chandra Shekhar Rawal S/o Shri Fakir Nath Rawal, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Ghodi Tejpur, Tehsil Choti Saran, District Banswara.

4. Prashant Kumar Rebari S/o Shri Laxman Lal Rebari, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Madrup Ki Dhani, Post Bedva Partapur, Tehsil Garhi, Banswara.

5. Ganpat Lal Pandya S/o Shri Narayan Lal Pandya, Aged About 37 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Chidiyavasa Tehsil Banswara, District Banswara

6. Gajendra Kumar Sarwar S/o Shri Gautam Lal Sarwar, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Sheshpur, Tehsil Salumber, Udaipur.

7. Venichand Bata S/o Shri Shankar Lal Bata, Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Sheshpur Tehsil Salumber District Udaipur.

8. Maya Patidar D/o Shri Dhulji Patidar, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Village Khumanpur Post Semliyaghata, Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur.

9. Mohan Lal Rebari S/o Shri Narayan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Umbada Tehsil Garhi District Banswara.

10. Kanuram Patel S/o Shri Govind Patel, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Dagar Tehsil Salumber, District Udaipur.

11. Puja Upadhyay D/o Shri Keshavlal Upadhyay, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Moti Bassi, Tehsil Arpuna District Banswara.

----Appellants Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,

(2 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc), Through Its Secretary Ajmer (Raj.).

3. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner.

4. Rama Ram S/o Shri Varda Ram, Resident Of Kasindra Post Achpura Tehsil Pindwara, Sirohi - 307510

5. Satpal Singh S/o Shri Kalu Singh Parmar, Resident Of 197, Adarsh Nagar, Sirohi - 307 001

6. Mohit Solanki S/o Shri Mohan Lal Solanki, Resident Of Teliyo Ki Gali, Behind Krishna College Sisarama, Tehsil Girwa, Udaipur.

7. Balwant Singh Panwar S/o Shri Manohar Singh Panwar, Resident Of Village Phalasiya Post Phalasiya, Tehsil Jhadol, Udaipur 313701

8. Chunni Lal Lohar S/o Shri Prem Chand Lohar, Resident Of Village Thobawara, Post- Upreta, Tehsil Jhadol, Udaipur 313 701.

9. Preeti Kumari Shrimali D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Shrimali, Resident Of Village Badgaon Post Dhol, Tehsil Gogunda, Udaipur.

10. Lal Shankar Gayari D/o Shri Bhim Raj Gayari, Resident Of Village Auto Ka Guda, Post Sapetiya, Tehsil Badgaon Udaipur.

11. Hemlata Patel D/o Dhanraj Patel, Resident Of Village Amarpura, Post Palodra, Tehsil Sarada, Udaipur.

12. Prabhu Lal Kumhar S/o Shri Ganesh Lal Kumhar, Resident Of Village And Post Was, Tehsil Gogunda, Udaipur.

13. Aru Panwar Darji S/o Shri Madan Lal Panwar Darji, Resident Of Village Munwja, Tehsil Barisadri, Chittorgarh.

14. Dinesh Dangi S/o Shri Nanda Dangi, Resident Of Village And Post Lakadwas Bagdara Colony, Tehsil Girwa District Udaipur.

15. Mukesh Kumar Paliwal S/o Shri Devi Lal, Resident Of Village Suthar Madra Post Raomadra Via Nandeshma, Tehsil Gogunda, Udaipur.

16. Deepika Rawal D/o Shri Shambhu Lal Rawal, Resident Of 1076, Near Hanuman Temple, Pulia, Udaipur, 313 001

----Respondents

(3 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 94/2022 Rahul Panchal S/o Shri Raman Lal Panchal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kunwa Tehsil Chikhali, District Dungarpur (Rajasthan).

----Appellant Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc), Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)

3. The Director, Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner.

4. Rama Ram S/o Shri Varda Ram, Resident Of Kasindra Post Achpura Tehsil Pindwara, Sirohi - 307510

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 101/2022

1. Kalpesh Kumar S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Nagar Dharmshala Ke Piche, Prathavi Ganj, Teliwada, District Banswara, Rajasthan. (Subject Sanskrit).

2. Harish Chandra Yadav S/o Shri Poonjiya Yadav, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V.p. Akhepanjika Gara, Tehsil- Gari, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. (Subject-Sanskrit).

3. Vijay Kumar Upadhyay S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay, Aged About 38 Years, R/o V.p. Gamda Bramniya, Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. (Subject-Sanskrit).

4. Naman Kumar Pandya S/o Shri Anil Kumar Pandya, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Bhattmewada Mohalla, Khadagada, Tehsil Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajashan. (Subject- Sanskrit).

5. Nilesh Bunker S/o Shri Ramlal Bunker, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Jethana, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajashan. (Subject-Sanskrit).

6. Shahrukh Mohammad S/o Abdul Kadar Mansuri, Aged About 22 Years, R/o V.p. Nougama, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. (Subject- Maths).

7. Mukesh Kumar Darji S/o Shri Lau Ji Darji, Aged About 30

(4 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

Years, R/o V.p. Mallada, Tehsil- Semari, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan. (Subject- Social Science).

8. Ashvin Pancholi S/o Shri Hemraj Pancholi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Barodiya, Post- Metwala, Tehsil- Garhi, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. (Subject- Social Science).

9. Mukesh Chandra Poncholi S/o Prakash Chandra Poncholi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Barodiya, Tehsil- Gari, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. (Subject-Hindi).

10. Raj Kumar Kharadi S/o Shri Heeralal Kharadi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Khandi Obri, Khervada, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan. (Subject-Hindi).

11. Mahendra Kumar Choubisa S/o Shri Kanhaiya Choubisa, Aged About 32 Years, R/o V.p. Rayaki Aspur, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan. (Subject-Hindi).

12. Bhupesh Singh Chawda S/o Shri Deva Chawada, Aged About 33 Years, R/o V.p. Chhinch, Tehsil- Bagidora, District- Banswara, Rajasthan. (Subject-Hindi).

----Appellants Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

5. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

6. Secretary, Department Of Soldier Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Rajasthan.

7. Deepika Rawal D/o Shri Shambhu Lal Rawal, R/o 1076, Near Hunuman Temple, Pulla, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

8. Niranjan Prasad Mod S/o Shri Navneet Lal Mod, R/o H 16, Govardhan Appartment, Govardhan Villas, Section 14, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

9. Yashwant Kumar Shastri S/o Narayan Lal Sharma, R/o Village And Post Chatiyakheri, Tehsil Gogunda, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

(5 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

10. Rama Ram S/o Shri Varda Ram, R/o Atkasindra, Post Achpura, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.

11. Priyanka Deshmukh D/o Shri Pramod Rao Deshmukh, R/o Patidar Mohalla, Narsingh Mandir Ke Pass, Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

12. Deepak Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Shankar Sharma, R/o Guruji Ki Kui, Neemuch Road, Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

13. Preeti Kumari Shrimali D/o Shri Suresh Kumar Shrimali, R/o Village Badgaon, Post Dhol, Tehsil Gogunda, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

14. Pappu Lal Purohit S/o Shri Shanti Lal, R/o Village Bambori, Tehsil Choti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

15. Jitesh Kumar Shrimali S/o Shri Manohar Lal Shrimali, Aged About 39 Years, R/o V.p. Diwada-Bada, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

16. Manohar Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Karan Singh Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V.p. Kakaji Ka Gara, Mota Danda Ganora, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

17. Bhupesh Yadav S/o Shri Kodar Yadav, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Barodiya, Metwala, Tehsil- Garhi, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

18. Ambicharan Singh S/o Shri Yagyapal Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o V.p. Osara, Tambesara, Sajjangarh, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

19. Mansingh Damor S/o Shri Bapulal Damor, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Bawdi, Chikhali, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

20. Surya Singh Chundawat S/o Shri Lal Singh Chundawat, Aged About 39 Years, R/o V.p. Padar Mota Danda, Ganoda, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

21. Suraj Damor S/o Shri Dhulji Damor, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Laxmanpura Po Hadmala, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

22. Sanjay Kumar Pitambar S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Pitambar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Gamothwara, Tehsil Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

23. Katrik Soni S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Soni, Aged About 24 Years, R/o V.p. Ganoda, Tehsil- Ganoda, District

(6 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

Banswara, Rajasthan.

24. Ronak Dixit S/o Shri Madhukar Dixit, Aged About 31 Years, R/o V.p. Khadagada, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

25. Vinod Kumar Choubisa S/o Shri Ram Shanker, Aged About 40 Years, R/o V.p. Pavara, Tehsil- Salumber, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan.

26. Hansa Meena D/o Shri Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Makadjapa, Po- Gadawat, Tehsil Rishabhdeo, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

27. Amul Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Durga Shanker Joshi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Wanderved, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

28. Manoj Kumar Dave S/o Shri Jayanti Lal Dave, Aged About 37 Years, R/o V.p. Chhinch, Tehsil- Bagidora, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

29. Chanchal Shrimali D/o Ramesh Chandra Shrimali, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Brahman Mohalla, Ambada, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

30. Praveen Singh Rathod S/o Laxman Singh Rathod, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Khumanpur, Post- Semaliya Ghada, Tehsil- Galiyakot, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

31. Pyare Lal Roat S/o Shri Devi Lal Roat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Fawta, Obri, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

32. Girish Kumar Joshi S/o Shri Dwarika Prasad Joshi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Panchvada, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

33. Mitesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Dhulji Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Ganoda, Tehsil- Ganoda, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

34. Pankaj Kalasua S/o Shri Mohan Lal Kalasua, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Saslai, Post Rathdi, Tehsil- Chikhali, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

35. Harshad Kumar Damor S/o Bhaychand Damor, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 8/18 Rhb Colony Shivaji Nagar, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

36. Priyesh Parmar S/o Shri Satyadev Parmar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 110, Yadav Mohalla Waya Chikali, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

(7 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

37. Vinayak Kumar Panchal S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Nayagaon, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

38. Jaymal Kumar Damor S/o Shri Bhaychand Damor, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 8/18 Rhb Colony, Shivji Nagar, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

39. Rajendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Mohan Singh Rathore, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Mohlla Vada Talidot, Post Rayki Raiki, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

40. Gautam Singh Chouhan S/o Shri Kesar Singh Chouhan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V.p. Vaundar Chhoti, Tehsil Aspur, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

41. Rohit Kumar Patidar S/o Shri Raman Lal Patidar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Gaugama, Tehsil- Bagidora, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

42. Kamlesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Babulala Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Larathi, Tehsil Kherwara, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan.

43. Kamlesh Patidar S/o Shri Valji Patidar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V.p. Silohi, Tehsil- Galiyakot, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

44. Nitin Patidar S/o Shri Ishwar Lal Patidar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ambada, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

45. Kanti Lal Gameti S/o Shri Haliya Gameti, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village- Baladeet, Post- Thana, Tehsil- Dungarpur, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

46. Basanti Katara S/o Shri Dhuri Lal Katara, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Navedera, Post- Surrur, Tehsil- Dungarpur, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

47. Harish Lal Kalal S/o Shri Nathu Lal Kalal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o V.p. Depur, Tehsil- Rishabhdeo, District- Udaipur, Rajasthan.

48. Mithun Kumar Damor S/o Shri Jesha Damor, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village- Mana Ka Dev, Post- Sarthuna, Tehsil- Simalwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

49. Leela Manat D/o Shri Navneet Lal Manat, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Khanda Mahuda, Post- Sabli, Tehsil- Bichhiwada, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

50. Archana Patidar D/o Shri Ravan Patidar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V.p. Daiyana, Tehsil- Sagwara, District-

                                            (8 of 20)                   [SAW-98/2022]


      Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

51. Kalu Singh Charan S/o Shri Mansingh Charan, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Merop, Simalvada, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

52. Lokesh Patidar S/o Shri Mogji Patidar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V.p. Bhasor, Tehsil- Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

53. Laxman Singh Maida S/o Shri Parta Maida, Aged About 40 Years, R/o V.p. Gopalpuri, Kalakhet, Chotisarvan, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

54. Navin Patidar S/o Shri Gajeng Patidar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V.p. Bori, Tehsil- Gari, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

55. Ram Singh S/o Shri Praveen Singh, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V.p. Abu Road, Sirohi, Rajasthan.

56. Rohit Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Hemant Kumar Vyas, Aged About 31 Years, R/o V.p. Hadmala, Tehsil- Sagwara, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

57. Hansa Kumari Lauvot D/o Shri Nandlal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o V.p. Barbodaniya, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

58. Nandlal Lohar S/o Shri Premit Lohar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o V.p. Karkala, Kharka, Salumbar, Rajasthan.

59. Jagdish Chandra Patidar S/o Shri Pratap Patidar, Aged About 38 Years, R/o V.p. Bagidora, District- Banswara, Rajasthan

60. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Hirji, Aged About 30 Years, R/o V.p. Sagrod, Tehsil- Talwara, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

61. Kanhaiya Lal Damor S/o Shri Khatu Ram Damor, Aged About 35 Years, R/o V.p. Patinagra, Danakshri, Chhotisarvan, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

62. Suresh Chandra Padiyar S/o Shri Devi Singh Padiyar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Itauva, Barodiya, District- Banswara, Rajasthan.

63. Lokesh Kumar Suthar S/o Shri Narayan Suthar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V.p. Bhekhared, Tehsil- Sabla, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

64. Mahendra Kumar S/o Shri Lakshmi Lal, Aged About 28

(9 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

Years, R/o Village Chandy Ka Vela, Post Bhoyar, Tehsil Ganoda, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

65. Dushtant Bhatt S/o Shri Kanhaiya Lal Bhatt, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Gamra Bamanaiya, Tehsil- Sagwara, District- Dungarpur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 112/2022 Ishwar Trivedi S/o Shri Rameshwar Trivedi, Aged About 34 Years, Village And Post Mohalla Chaki Chowk, Paloda, Tehsil Gharhi, District Banswara (Rajasthan).

----Appellant Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission (Rpsc), Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.).

3. The Director Department Of Secondary Education, Bikaner.

4. Deepika Rawal D/o Shri Shambhu Lal Rawal, 1076, Near Hanuman Temple, Pulia, Udaipur, 313001.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr Manoj Bhandari, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr Aniket Tater Dr. Nupur Bhati, Mr Sandeep Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr M.S.Singhvi, AG-cum-Sr. Advocate (through VC) assisted by Mr K.S.Lodha Mr Pankaj Sharma, AAG Mr Dhairyadiya Singh Rathore Ms. Deepika Soni Mr Tanwar Singh Mr VLS Rajpurohit Mr Vikram Singh for Mr Tarun Joshi Mr Shambhoo Singh Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR GARG

Judgment

03/01/2023

(10 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

These special appeals are filed by the appellants being

aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed by the

learned Single Judge in various writ petitions, whereby the writ

petitions have been dismissed for the reasons; (i) non-

impleadment of necessary parties; (ii) failure on the part of the

appellants in questioning the validity of the corrigendum dated

04.06.2018; (iii) the appellants being estopped from questioning

the validity of inclusion of candidates of the newly included TSP

area having been participated in the selection process after

issuance of corrigendum dated 04.06.2018; (iv) the writ petitions

being highly belated and (v) alternate relief regarding increase of

post being not available.

Brief facts of the case are that the RPSC issued

advertisement dated 09.04.2018 inviting applications for the post

of Senior Teacher Grade-II in various subjects for TSP areas under

the provisions of Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate,

Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service

Conditions) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of

2014') for different number of posts in different subjects. The

written examinations were conducted and merit of the candidates

was prepared on the basis of aggregate marks of both papers.

After declaration of the result, candidates two times the total

number of vacant posts were called for document verification and

the result of the examination was declared on 29.07.2019,

08.08.2019 and 02.09.2019 for different subjects.

After verification of the documents of the candidates,

final select/merit list was issued on 16.03.2020, 12.02.2020,

(11 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

27.02.2020 and 16.03.2020 for different seats. Admittedly, the

appellants could not obtain more marks than the cut-off of the

selected candidates. At this stage, the appellants have filed writ

petitions challenging the action of the State Government for

inclusion of the candidates of non-TSP areas on the ground that

advertisement was issued on 09.04.2018 as per the vacancies

determined on 01.04.2018, however, later on, the State issued a

notification dated 19.05.2018, whereby the scheduled area is

extended and then, the RPSC issued a corrigendum dated

04.06.2018, whereby it has extended the last date for filling up

on-line applications up to 16.06.2018 in relation to the

advertisement dated 09.04.2018 and as such an opportunity was

provided to the candidates residing in newly included TSP areas to

apply pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018, whereas it

is not permissible under the law.

It was argued on behalf of the appellants before the

learned Single Judge that in terms of the provisions of Rules of

2014, the vacancies are to be determined on 1st of April every

year as such the advertisement which was issued on 9.4.2018, the

vacancies indicated therein were upto 01.4.2018 and, therefore,

the respondents could not have included the candidates of the

newly added TSP areas qua the said vacancies, which pertain to

the TSP area as it existed on 01.4.2018. It was also contended

that the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 issued by the RPSC was

contrary to the circular dated 01.06.2018 issued by the

Department of Personnel, wherein it is specifically provided that

the provisions of the notification dated 19.05.2018 would apply to

the advertisements issued after 19.05.2018.

(12 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

The writ petitions were opposed by the State raising

preliminary objections that the candidates who have been selected

pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 have not been

impleaded as party-respondents in any of the writ petitions,

though they are necessary party and therefore, the writ petitions

are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

It was also contended on behalf of the State before the

learned Single Judge that the writ petitions are highly belated as

the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dated

09.04.2018, has already been concluded and final selection list

has already been issued in the month of February-March 2020. It

is further contended that the recruitment is also completed and

even the reserve list has also been exhausted and in such

circumstances, no case for interference is made out.

It was also argued on behalf of the State that the RPSC

issued a corrigendum way back on 04.06.2018; thereafter written

examinations were held and provisional merit list was issued in

the month of July-August 2019; the appellants continued to

participate in the selection process till the declaration of the final

select list and thereafter, after waiting for quite long, filed the writ

petitions but they are estopped from challenging the inclusion of

the areas pursuant to the notification dated 19.05.2018 because

they had participated in the selection process.

Other submissions on merits, were also advanced

before the learned Single Judge on behalf of both the parties,

however, the learned Single Judge proceeded to dismiss the writ

petitions for the reasons indicated in the earlier part of this order.

(13 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

A Coordinate Bench of this Court in D.B. Special

Appeal Writ No.94/2022 (Rahul Panchal Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.) has passed the following order on

18.02.2022:

"The issues involve in this appeal are :

(I) Whether it is permissible for the petitioner-appellant to challenge inclusion of the area by way of corrigendum during the process of selection when it was not challenged by the petitioner though he participated in the process of selection, until he was declared unsuccessful.

(II) Whether the appeal is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-impleadment of selected candidates as parties.

Issue notice, on payment of PF within one week. Notices are made returnable within three weeks."

It is noticed that in DBSAW Nos.94/2022, 101/2022

and 98/2022, three applications were preferred on behalf of the

appellants first for seeking amendment in the writ petition with a

prayer to allow the appellants to challenge the validity of the

corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 issued by the RPSC, another

application is preferred with a prayer for impleading some

candidates as party respondents, who have been selected

pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 and an

application under Order 14 Rule 27 CPC is preferred with a prayer

for taking certain documents on record. However, in DBSAW

No.101/2022, two applications were preferred one with a prayer

for impleading some of the candidates, who have been selected

pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018, as party

respondents and another application seeking prayer for taking

certain documents on record.

Learned counsel for the respondents have argued that

the learned Single Judge has grossly erred in dismissing the writ

(14 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

petitions filed by the petitioners purely on technical grounds. It is

also submitted that when the impugned action of the State is

clearly in contravention of the provisions of law, the learned Single

Judge ought to have ignored the hypertechnical objections such as

non-impleadment of selected candidates, delay in filing the writ

petitions and not challenging the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018.

Learned counsel have argued that as a matter of fact

the extension of schedule area vide Notification dated 19.05.2018

is a policy decision of the State Government and when the policy

decision of the State Government is under challenge, it is not

necessary to implead those persons as party, who are likely to be

affected in case the court interferes in the action of the State

Government of extension of schedule areas. In support of above

submissions, learned counsel for the appellants have relied on a

decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in General

Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and Ors.

vs. A.V.R.Siddhantti and Ors., reported in (1974) 4 SCC 335.

Learned counsel for the appellants have submitted that

even if it is assumed that non-impleadment of the selected

persons as party respondents and not challenging the validity of

the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 issued by the RPSC is fatal

now the appellants have moved applications for impleading the

selected candidates as party respondents and also moved

application seeking amendment in the writ petition by which the

corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 is led and this Court can allow to

amend the writ petitions and to implead the selected persons as

party respondents and then remand the matter to the learned

Single Judge for a fresh decision or can decide the controversy at

(15 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

this stage itself. It is submitted that when the action of the State

is suffering from illegality, this Court can interfere at any stage

and pass just order.

On the strength of the above arguments, learned

counsel for the appellants have prayed that these appeals may

kindly be allowed and the impugned judgment passed by the

learned Single Judge may kindly be set aside and the writ

petitions filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed.

It is also prayed that the application filed by the

petitioners seeking amendment in the writ petition, impleadment

of the selected candidates as party respondents in the writ

petitions and for producing certain documents on record be

allowed and the matter be remanded to the learned Single Judge

to pass a fresh decision in the matter.

In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants

have argued that the State may be directed to consider for

increase in the vacancies and thereafter to accord appointments to

the appellants as per their merit on the said increased vacancies.

Per contra, learned Advocate General Mr. M. S. Singhvi,

Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. K.S. Lodha vehemently opposed the

petition and argued that at this stage, the appellants cannot be

permitted to implead the selected candidates as party respondents

or to challenge the corrignedum dated 04.06.2018. It is argued

that objection regarding non-impleadment of the selected

candidates as party respondents in the writ petition and of not

challenging the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 was raised at the

initial stage and appellants despite having the opportunity to

implead those candidates as party respondents and to challenge

(16 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

the validity of the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018, chose to

contest the matter on merits before the learned Single Judge and

in such circumstances, learned Single Judge has not committed

any illegality in dismissing the writ petitions for those reasons.

It is further argued that even if the prayer of the

petitioners to implead the selected candidates as party-

respondents and to challenge the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018

is allowed, the fact remains that the appellants have participated

in the selection process without raising any objection of inclusion

of candidates of the newly added TSP areas and the said omission

on the part of the appellants is fatal and the same cannot be

cured at this stage. It is argued that it is settled that if a person

without raising any objection regarding selection process has

participated in the selection and on being not selected is estopped

from challenging the said action.

Learned Advocate General has further submitted the

selections, pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018, have

been completed way back in February-March 2020 and any

interference at this stage would lead to uncertainty. It is argued

that that the examinations are to be completed in given time and

the selection process cannot be derailed only because some of the

candidates are dissatisfied. It is further submitted that

interference by this Court at this stage will bring uncertainty to

selected candidate, who would left in lurch; the situation which

will arise with the interference does not work to anybody's

advantage and would ultimately suffers the public interest.

Learned counsel has, therefore, argued that there is no

(17 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

merit in these special appeals and the same are liable to be

dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

It is not in dispute that the appellants have challenged

the selection process undertaken by the respondents pursuant to

the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 after declaration of the result

and after completion of the selection process. The selected

persons have not been impleaded as party respondents even in

representative capacity. The corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 issued

by the RPSC has also not been challenged by the appellants in the

writ petition.

It is also not in dispute that the preliminary objections

have been raised by the respondents in their reply to the writ

petitions to the effect that selected persons have not been

impleaded in the writ petition, corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 is

not under challenge and the appellants are estopped from

questioning the selection pursuant to the advertisement dated

09.40.2018 once they have participated in the selection.

Learned Single Judge while relying on various

pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it is held that

in no uncertain terms, the High Court ought not to decide the writ

petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without the

persons who would be vitally affected by its judgment being

before it as respondents or at least by some of them being before

it as respondents in a representative capacity.

Learned Single Judge has also relied upon the decision

of Hon'ble Supreme Court, wherein it is held that the candidates

(18 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

who have appeared in the examination despite knowing the

discrepancy as alleged took chance for their selection are

estopped by the principle of estoppel challenging the selection

process on the ground that any discrepancy was there.

We have carefully gone through the impugned

judgment and found that the learned Single Judge while dealing

with the arguments of the party concerned in detail and after

relying on the several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

dismissed the writ petitions for the reasons the appellants have

not impleaded the necessary party and have also failed to

question the validity of the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018.

Learned Single Judge has further held that the appellants are

being estopped from questioning the validity of the corrigendum,

from inclusion of the candidates of the newly included area have

not participated in the selection process without raising any

objection. It is also observed by the learned Single Judge that the

petitions are highly belated.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after

going through the material available on record, we do not find any

illegality in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single

Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case.

The submission of the learned counsel for the

appellants that the extension of scheduled area vide Notification

dated 19.05.2018 is a policy decision and when the policy is under

challenge, it is not necessary to implead those persons as party,

who are likely to be affected, in case the court inteferes, is though

having some force but in the present case, the decision of

extending the scheduled area cannot be said to be a policy

decision in strict sense. The policy of declaring scheduled area is

(19 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

in vogue since the Constitution of India is framed and any increase

in the area of scheduled area cannot be termed as a policy

decision. In such circumstances, the judgment rendered by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, South Central

Railway, Secundereabad and Ors. vs. A.V.R. Siddhantti and

Ors. (supra) is of no help to the appellants.

So far as the submission of the appellants to direct the

respondent-State to increase the number of posts is concerned,

suffice it to say that the said exercise has already been

undertaken at the time when the writ petitions were pending. It is

noticed that the learned Single Judge vide order dated 23.03.2021

required the Advocate General to complete his instructions

regarding increasing the seats, however, on 08.11.2021, learned

Advocate General informed the learned Single Judge that it was

not possible for the State to increase the seats, so now, no such

direction can be issued once the same has already been

deliberated.

So far as arguments of the learned counsel to the

effect that now the appellants may be allowed to challenge the

corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 by way of amending the writ

petition and to implead the selected candidates as party

respondents in representative capacity is concerned, this Court

finds it difficult to allow this prayer of the appellants at this stage

when the selections pursuant to the advertisement dated

04.06.2018 have already been completed more than two and a

half years ago. Any selection process cannot be subjected to an

uncertainty. The uncertain situation does not work for anybody's

advantage and uncertainty in selection process would have a large

impact, which may result in suffering the public interest.

(20 of 20) [SAW-98/2022]

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Ors.

Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. repoted in (2018) 2 SCC 357 has

held as under:

"32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers."