Jitendra Singh vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4036 Raj

[2023/RJJD/013411]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6320/2021

1. Gyan Singh S/o Balwan Singh, Aged About 37 Years, Village And Post Bhojasar, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

2. Rajesh Kumar Sharma S/o Rishiraj Sharma, Aged About 48 Years, Ward No.22, Near Old Bus Stand, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

3. Gopal Krishan Sharma S/o Chunni Lal, Aged About 43 Years, City School, Ward No.03, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

4. Lal Chand S/o Hajari Ram, Aged About 48 Years, Vpo Jasana, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12756/2018

1. Jitendra Singh S/o Shri Gaje Singh Bhati, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 540-A, Mohan-B, BJS Colony, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

2. Narendra Singh Bhati S/o Shri Swaroop Singh Bhati, Aged About 38 Years, 517, BJS Colony, Near Shiv Mandir, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan

3. Bajrang Lal Sharma S/o Shri Moti Lal Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, 19/230, Choupasani Housing Board, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan

[2023/RJJD/013411] (2 of 5) [CW-6320/2021]

4. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, P. No. 275-A, Section-7, New Power House Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan

5. Malam Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 38 Years, Vpo Jetpura, Via Sheoganj, Sirohi, District Sirohi, Rajasthan

6. Keshar Singh Deora S/o Shri Narpat Singh Deora, Aged About 40 Years, Vpo Uthman, Tehsil Sheoganj, Sirohi, District Sirohi, Rajasthan

7. Sanjay Kumar Pandey S/o Shri Avdesh Pandey, Aged About 42 Years, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan

8. Prem Raj Soni S/o Shri Goma Ram Soni, Aged About 40 Years, Vpo Shergarh, Tehsil Shergarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan

9. Devendra Singh Shekhawat S/o Shri Gopal Singh Shekhawat, Aged About 38 Years, 07, Rajmata Ka Nohra, Pandit Dindayal Circle, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan

10. Sanjeev Kumar S/o Shri Ravi Lal, Aged About 33 Years, Goshiwara, Swami Vivekanand Marg, Sojat City, District Pali, Rajasthan

11. Prem Singh Rathore S/o Shri Lal Singh Rathore, Aged About 40 Years, Village Mangeriya, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan

12. Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Amlakh Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Vpo Bawarli, Tehsil Balesar, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan

----Petitioners Versus

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

2. The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

[2023/RJJD/013411] (3 of 5) [CW-6320/2021]

4. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner Rajasthan.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tarun Joshi through V.C Mr. Vikram Singh

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

04/05/2023

1. These petitions have been preferred by the petitioners for

the following reliefs:-

"A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any order denying the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Teacher Grade-III in pursuance of the advertisement dated 02.06.2004 (Annex.1) may kindly quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to declare afresh result against the posts where, the access female candidates have been selected wrongly for the post of Teacher Grade-III in pursuance of the advertisement dated 02.06.2004.

C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioners in the selection process and provide the appointment to the petitioners as per the marks secured by them in pursuance of the advertisement dated 02.06.2004 for the post of Teacher Grade-III with all consequential benefits in the light of judgment dated 15.12.2015 (Annex.7) passed by

[2023/RJJD/013411] (4 of 5) [CW-6320/2021]

the Hon'ble High Court in the case of "Manoj Kumar Tungariya Vs. State and Ors."

D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to provide the seniority and all service benefits to the petitioners for the post of Teacher Grade-III from the date of actual appointment in pursuance of the advertisement dated 02.06.2004.

E. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners. F. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with cost."

2. Mr. Tarun Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent-

Rajasthan Public Service Commission submitted that due to

inadvertence more female candidates were recommended on the

post of Teacher Grade-III in the recruitment of 2004 and on

grievance being raised, Jaipur Bench of this Court in the case of

Manoj Kumar Tungariya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.1743/2005, by way of order dated 15.12.2015,

directed the respondent - Commission/State to give appointment

to the petitioner therein. He highlighted that the said adjudication

was confined to recruitment of the year 2004.

3. He further informed that subsequent thereto some of the

petitioners challenged the recruitment made in the year 2006 on

the same ground and while deciding the writ petition(s) of those

candidates, the Court issued identical directions, however,

confining the same qua the petitioners who have approached the

Court.

[2023/RJJD/013411] (5 of 5) [CW-6320/2021]

4. Mr. Joshi argued that the recruitment of the year 2004 and

2006 were not concluded by that time and the petitioners therein

had approached the Courts well within time, hence, the High Court

has rightly passed the orders in those two cases.

5. He submitted that the adjudication made by this Court was

confined to those petitioners, who had approached the High Court

within time. The present petitioners cannot challenge the

recruitment of 2004 which has attained finality, at least 15 years

back.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners was not in a position to

satisfy as to on what principles, the recruitment, which has

attained finality, can be disturbed after about 20 years and how

the petitioners can claim appointment based on the adjudication in

those writ petitions.

7. The petitioners have preferred the writ petitions after

inordinate delay and considering that not only the recruitment of

2004 and 2006 even 3-4 recruitments thereafter have taken

place, this Court is of the firm view that no indulgence can be

granted to the petitioners herein.

8. The present writ petitions are hereby dismissed.

9. Stay petitions also stand dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 16-17-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)