State Of Rajasthan vs Kapil Vyas (2023/Rjjd/002164)
2023 Latest Caselaw 931 Raj

[2023/RJJD/002164]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 753/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Technical Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Bikaner Technical University, Bikaner, Through Its Registrar.

3. The Engineering College, Through Its Principal, Karni Industrial, Industrial Area, Pugal Road, Bikaner.

----Appellants Versus

1. Navratan Ladrecha S/o Jethmal Ladrecha, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Kumharon Ka Mohalla, Near City Power House, Bikaner.

2. Lavesh Gupta S/o Satish Chanra Gupta, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 32-A, Nagnechi Scheme, Bikaner

3. Nikhil Pareek S/o Bhanwar Lal Pareek, R/o Pareek Chowk, Near Jassusar Gate, Bikaner

----Respondents Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 725/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Technical Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Engineering College Bikaner, Through Principal,karni Industrial Area, Pugal Area, Bikaner - 334808.

3. The Bikaner Technical University, Through Registrar, Karni Industrial Area, Pugal Area, Bikaner - 334808.

----Appellants Versus Kapil Vyas S/o Sh. Narottam Vyas, Aged About 47 Years, R/o Chhabilighati, Near Gogagate, Bikaner - 334001.

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 745/2022

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Technical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Bikaner Engineering College, Bikaner, Through Its Chairman, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/002164] (2 of 8) [SAW-753/2022]

3. The Principal, Government Engineering College, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Appellants Versus

1. Kunji Lal Swami Father/o Shri Punam Chand Swami, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Behind Baleshewar Balika School, Bangla Nagar Pugal Road, Bikaner, Rajasthan

2. Angad Bishnoi Father/o Shri Mohan Lal Bishnoi, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ii B, 25A, Murlidhar Vyas Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

3. Tarun Yetay Father/o Shri Umesh Chandra Yetay, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Opposite Sharma Computer, Near Bengali Temple, Rani Bazar, Bikaner, Rajasthan

4. Amit Kumar Ojha Father/o Shri Ganesh Lal Ojha, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Ojha Street, Near Paukar School, Raghunath Sir Well, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. Manoj Kookna Father/o Shri Nema Ram Choudhary, Aged About 36 Years, R/o E 66 B Karta Khatriya Colony, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

6. Nand Kishor Harsh Father/o Shri Pukhraj Harsh, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Jiven Ram Ji Harsh Ki Gali, Harsho Ka Chawk, Bikaner, Rajasthan

7. Balwant Bhatiya Father/o Shri Ramchandra Bhatiya, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Daulatpura, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan

----Respondents D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 754/2022

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Technical Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Bikaner Technical University, Bikaner Through Its Registrar.

3. The Engineering College, Bikaner Through Its Principal, Karni Industrial, Industrial Area, Pugal Road, Bikaner.

----Appellants Versus

1. Rajesh Kumar Vyas S/o Shri Ganesh Vyas, Aged About 40 Years, Resident Of Behind Kripal Bhero Temple, Sarvodaya Basti, Bikaner

[2023/RJJD/002164] (3 of 8) [SAW-753/2022]

2. Smt. Suman Swami W/o Shri Ram Kumar Swami, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Maliyon Ka Mohalla, Outside Jassusar Gate, Bikaner.

3. Ravi Kumar Rawat S/o Shri Braj Mohan Rawa, Aged About 36 Years, Resident Of Behind Nagar Nigam, Rawato Ka Mohalla, Bikaner.

4. Ajay Singh S/o Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Pratap Singh Ki Badi, Infront Of Karni Sewa Sansthan, Bikaner.

5. Mahendra Saini S/o Shri Prakash Chand Saini, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Near Ladies Hospital, Mohalla Sarai, Kotputli, Jaipur.

6. Sujeet Kumar Bhati S/o Shri Hari Ram Bhati, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of Near Shri Ram Temple, Behind Ms College, Ranisar Bas, Bikaner.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr.Manish Vyas, AAG.

For Respondent(s)               :     Mr.Girish Joshi
                                      Mr.Avinash Acharya



            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment

24/01/2023

This bunch of appeals is directed against the interim order

dated 7.5.2022 passed by learned Single Bench in the bunch of

writ petitions filed by the respondents herein, whereby effect and

operation of the orders terminating the services of the

respondents herein was stayed.

Shri Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General

vehemently and fervently urges that the appointment of the

respondents was perpetrated with a sheerly bogus selection

process and as such, there was no requirement to hear them

[2023/RJJD/002164] (4 of 8) [SAW-753/2022]

before setting aside the appointment orders procured by fraud. It

was further submitted that the Principal of the Bikaner

Engineering College has committed grave offences while issuing

the bogus appointment orders in favour of the respondents and

for the said fraud, he is facing departmental as well as criminal

proceedings. Shri Vyas further submitted that the fresh selection

process was required to be undertaken in view of the following

observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court while disposing

of the Special Leave to Appeal No.4103-4116/2018 filed by

Narayan Das Vyas and others:

"Considering the fact that the respective petitioners were appointed as ad hoc and as ad hoc they have nor right to continue on the post and even it is also noticed that the appointments were not made after following due procedure as required to be followed with respect to the public employment, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions, accordingly, stand dismissed.

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Government is directed to fill up all the posts and complete the recruitment process within a period of six months from today.

It will be open for the petitioners to submit and even make a representation to grant age relaxation which may be considered sympathetically."

As per Shri Vyas, the termination orders were required to be

passed so as to ensure compliance of the directions given by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court. On these grounds, Shri Vyas

vehemently and fervently implored the Court to accept the

appeals and set aside the impugned orders, whereby the effect

and operation of the termination order dated 25.3.2022 passed by

the respondents writ petitioners was stayed.

[2023/RJJD/002164] (5 of 8) [SAW-753/2022]

Learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently

and fervently opposed the submissions of Shri Vyas. They urge

that the selection process in question was undertaken in a fair and

transparent manner. The writ petitioners participated therein and

were selected against the post applied for on their own merits.

Appointment orders were issued in a lawful manner. Narayan Das

Vyas and few others whose ad-hoc services adversely affected,

questioned the validity of the regular selection process by filing

Writ Petition No.5927/2018, which did not find favour of the

learned Single Bench, which disposed of the writ petition vide

order dated 11.7.2018. The S.L.P. preferred by these very ad-hoc

employees as referred to supra, was also dismissed and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court observing that the posts could be filled up

by holding a recruitment process. They urged that as a matter of

fact, learned counsel representing the parties before Hon'ble the

Supreme Court failed to point out that the selection process had

already taken place in the intervening period and appointments

had been made on 18 posts. It was thus, contended that the

appellants were not justified in terminating the services of the writ

petitioners.

In rejoinder, learned counsel Shri Vyas submitted that the

termination orders in question were passed on basis of the legal

opinion of the Learned Additional Advocate General representing

the State of Rajasthan before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He

placed the letter dated 18.2.2022 forwarded by the Additional

Advocate General to buttress this contention.

We have considered the submissions advanced at the bar

and have gone through the material available on record.

[2023/RJJD/002164] (6 of 8) [SAW-753/2022]

The selection of the respondents was undertaken in

pursuance of a duly Advertised Recruitment Notification. The

validity/propriety of the said selection process was challenged by a

few of the ad-hoc employees by filing writ petition No.5927/2018

which came to be disposed of by learned Single Bench vide order

dated 11.7.2018. The learned Single Bench did not find favour

with the plea of the writ petitioners therein and no interference

was made in the selection process in question. While rejecting the

S.L.P. of those very writ petitioners, Hon'ble the Supreme Court

made an observation that the State Government shall fill up the

posts and complete the recruitment process within a period of six

months. It appears that the fact regarding selection process

already having been conducted in the intervening period, was not

brought to the notice of Hon'ble the Supreme Court.

The legal opinion of the Additional Advocate General which

is referred to in the impugned termination orders was shown to us

by Shri Vyas. It expresses that if the services of 18 persons are

terminated after following due process of law, the vacancies would

again be available for fresh recruitment and in this manner, the

order passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court can be implemented.

Ex-facie, legal opinion forwarded by the learned Additional

Advocate General did not require the State authorities to act in a

highhanded/arbitrary manner without following the due process of

law. The orders whereby the respondents' services were

terminated read that the same were being passed in reference to

the communication forwarded by the learned Additional Advocate

General. However, exfacie the communication seems to have been

misconstrued because there was no such opinion that the

[2023/RJJD/002164] (7 of 8) [SAW-753/2022]

termination orders could be passed at the whims of the authorities

without following the due process of law.

On the contrary, the legal opinion forwarded by the learned

Additional Advocate General specifically reads that if the services

of 18 persons are terminated after following due process of law,

the vacancies would again be available for fresh recruitment.

Adherence to the due process of law would require fair opportunity

of hearing and proper justification. A perusal of the order of

termination dated 25.3.2022 makes it clear that other than

referring to the conclusion of the inquiry committee constituted by

the Technical Education Department, Govt. of Rajasthan and a

bald reference to the opinion of the learned Additional Advocate

General and the order dated 4.10.2021 passed by Hon'ble the

Supreme Court, no reason whatsoever was assigned for taking the

drastic action of the termination of the services of regularly

selected employees. It is a cardinal principle of law that services

of a regularly selected employee cannot be terminated without

following the due process of law of which right to be heard would

be an inherent component.

Having considered the entirety of facts and circumstances

mentioned above and after going through the impugned order

dated 7.5.2022, we are in conformity with the view taken by the

learned Single Bench whereby, while entertaining the writ

petitions, learned Single Bench stayed the effect and operation of

the patently illegal and arbitrary termination order dated

25.3.2022. The order dated 7.5.2022 passed by learned Single

Bench ex-facie does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality

warranting interference therein.

[2023/RJJD/002164] (8 of 8) [SAW-753/2022]

Hence, the appeals which are delayed, fail and are dismissed

on merits.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J

/tarun goyal/

77 to 80

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)