Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Rakesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:32091) on 1 August, 2024

Author: Farjand Ali

Bench: Farjand Ali

[2024:RJ-JD:32091]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3409/2021

Banwarilal Kumhar Kumawat S/o Shri Surajmal Kumhar, Aged
About 41 Years, Resident Of Indra Colony, Ward No. 01,
Ajeetgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan. At Present Posted At Govt.
Sr. Sec. School, Bajju, Dist. Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Commissioner), Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Ajmer Mandal, Ajmer.
4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bikaner Mandal, Bikaner.
----Respondents

Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1618/2021
Gori Shankar Shukla S/o Shri Radhey Shyam Shukla, Aged
About 35 Years, Resident Of House No. - 81, 82, Behind Agarwal
Girls College, Dayal Nagar, Gangapur City, Gangapur, District -
Sawaimadhopur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Commissioner), Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bharatpur Mandal, Bharatpur.
4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Jodhpur Mandal, Jodhpur.
----Respondents

(Downloaded on 08/08/2024 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:32091] (2 of 10) [CW-3409/2021]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1622/2021
Chhagan Lal S/o Shri Moola Ram, Aged About 38 Years, Resident
Of Village- Bhawandesar, Tehsil- Ratangarh, District- Churu.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Commissioner), Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Churu Mandal, Churu.
4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Jodhpur Mandal, Jodhpur.
----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1729/2021
Rakesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Shamsher Singh Yadav, Aged
About 39 Years, R/o Village Rajdhoki, Post Hingwahera, Tehsil
Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director (Commissioner), Secondary Education,
Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Bharatpur Mandal, Bharatpur.
4. The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan,
Jodhpur Mandal, Jodhpur.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K.R. Saharan
For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.K. Mehta, DyGC

(Downloaded on 08/08/2024 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:32091] (3 of 10) [CW-3409/2021]

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI

Order

01/08/2024

1. These four writ petitions preferred under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India involve identical issue, therefore, the same

are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer issued a

recruitment advertisement dated 09.04.2018 inviting applications

from the eligible candidates to fill up the posts of Senior Teacher

(Teacher Grade-II) in various subjects. The petitioners herein

filled up the application forms and appeared in the written

examination and ultimately they came to the selected on the post

of Senior Teacher (Teacher Grade-II) in their respective subjects.

It is relevant to note here that the respondents had taken a

preference option form from the selected candidates, whereby

they gave their order of preference for allotment of Mandal

(Division). A copy of the preference option form has been

annexed with each of these writ petitions as Annexure-2. The

issue raised by the petitioners herein is that the on the one hand

the respondents have allotted them Mandal much lower in the

order of preference given by them and on the other hand,

candidates belonging to exactly same category and having less

merit position than the petitioners have been allotted the Mandals

for which the petitioners had given higher preference. In each of

the writ petition, the petitioners have mentioned the names and

merit positions of such candidates. They, thus, pray that the

respondents may be directed to allot them Mandal (Division) in

(Downloaded on 08/08/2024 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:32091] (4 of 10) [CW-3409/2021]

accordance with the order of preference as given in Annexure-2

keeping in view their merit positions.

3. The controversy raised by the petitioners is squarely covered

by the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this court in a

batch of appeals led by D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.815/2019 [State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Poonam

Sharma] on 29.08.2019, wherein it is held that :-

13. The issue of giving weightage and- as far as
possible- giving effect to the preference of a candidate
who secures a high ranking in the merit list, while
allocating a cadre (much in the same manner as the
allocation of the preferred division, as in this case), was
a subject matter of a Constitution Bench ruling of the
Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Ramesh Ram &
Ors., (2010) 7 SCC 234. In that decision, the Court
resolved the conflict between different judgments. The
question was whether a merited reserved category
candidate (MRC), pushed up into the general category
merit list and treated as an open merit candidate, can
be placed at a disadvantageous position vis-a-vis a
reserved category candidate in regard to allocation of
cadre, especially when the less merited candidate is
granted the cadre of his/her choice. The Supreme
Court observed as follows:-

"32. There is an obvious distinction between
qualifying through an entrance test for securing
admission in a medical college and qualifying in
the UPSC examinations since the latter
examination is conducted for filling up vacancies
in the various civil services. In the former case, all

(Downloaded on 08/08/2024 at 08:33:07 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:32091] (5 of 10) [CW-3409/2021]

the successful candidates receive the same
benefit of securing ad- mission in an educational
institution. However, in the latter case there are
variations in the benefits that accrue to successful
candidates because they are also competing
amongst themselves to secure the service of their
choice. For example, most candidates opt for at
least one of the first three services [i.e. Indian
Administrative Service (IAS), Indian Foreign
Service (IFS) and Indian Police Service (IPS)]
when they are asked for preferences. A majority
of the candidates prefer IAS as the first option. In
this respect, a Re- served Category candidate who
has qualified as part of the general list should not
be disadvantaged by being assigned to a lower
service against the vacancies in the General
Category especially because if he had availed the
benefit of his Reserved Category status, he would
have got a service of a higher preference. With
the obvious intention of preventing such an
anomaly, Rule 16 (2) provides that an MRC
candidate is at liberty to choose between the
general quota or the respective Reserved
Category quota.
***********

36. We must also take note of the fact that when MRC candidates get adjusted against the Reserved Category, the same creates corresponding vacancies in the General Merit List (since MRC candidates are on both lists). These vacancies are of course filled up by general candidates. Likewise, when MRC candidates are subsequently adjusted against the General Category [i.e. without availing the benefit of Rule 16 (2)], the same will result in vacancies in the Reserved Category which must in turn be filled up

[2024:RJ-JD:32091] (6 of 10) [CW-3409/2021]

by Wait Listed Reserved Candidates. Moreover, the operation of Rule 16 does not result in the ouster of any of the candidates recommended in the first list. Many of the wait-listed candi- dates are accommodated in the second stage, and the relatively lower ranked wait-listed candidates are excluded. It is pertinent to note that these excluded candidates never had any absolute right to recruitment or even any expectation that they would be recruited. Their chances depend on how MRC candidates are adjusted.

37. In the impugned judgment, the High Court had reasoned that allocation to a particular post cannot be distinguished from allocation to a service for the purpose of reservation. However, the High Court had not considered the fact that in the CSE examination, the candidates are not competing for similar posts in one service but are instead competing for posts in different services that correspond to varying preferences.

38. Furthermore, the impugned judgment did not appreciate the possibility that when an SC/ST/OBC candidate qualifies on merit (i.e. without any relaxation/concession) there can be a situation where a lower ranked OBC candidate gets allotted to a better service in comparison to a higher ranked SC/ST/OBC candidate simply because the higher ranked OBC candidate performed well enough to qualify in the General Category. Such a situation is anomalous. As we have already discussed, the High Court's reliance on the decision of this Court in Union of India v Satya Prakash (supra.), is not tenable since it

[2024:RJ-JD:32091] (7 of 10) [CW-3409/2021]

dealt with the effect of Rule 16 (2) as it existed prior to the amendment notified on 4.12.2004.

72. We sum up our answers-:

(i) MRC candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16 (2) and adjusted in the reserved category should be counted as part of the reserved pool for the purpose of computing the aggregate reservation quotas. The seats vacated by MRC candidates in the General Pool will be offered to General category candidates.

(ii).....

(iii)....

(iv) The reserved category candidates "belonging to OBC, SC/ ST categories" who are selected on merit and placed in the list of General/Unreserved category candidates can choose to migrate to the respective reserved category at the time of allocation of services. Such migration as envisaged by Rule 16 (2) is not inconsistent with Rule 16 (1) or Articles 14, 16 (4) and 335 of the Constitution."

14. In the light of the ruling in Ramesh Ram (supra), it is no longer open to the State to contend that allocation of cadre or division, according to the preference sought from candidates, at the initial stage of the recruitment process, is a pure administrative matter. What is in issue is the fairness of the process of allocation.

15. The peculiar condition that the State finds itself in today, is because it proceeded to make final allocations of the divisions having regard to the available materials, i.e. recommendations received at different

[2024:RJ-JD:32091] (8 of 10) [CW-3409/2021]

times, from RPSC and the vacancy position that was available at the time of receipt of such recommendations. There is some merit in the State's submission that posting orders of the selected candidates could not have been withheld to await receipt of recommendations to all the posts. Public interest of course, dictated that the teachers recruited be assigned duties as early as practically feasible. Yet, that did not mean that final allocations had to be made at the stage of assigning duties. No doubt, the cadre of Senior Teachers is maintained divisionwise. Yet, the recruitment was by a common process; the rules applicable were the same and the procedure adopted too was the same. This meant that if there were some delays in forwarding recommendations, the allocations of concerned divisions had to be made finally. Until the entire picture emerged with regard to recommendation of candidates, the State could have well made provisional cadre allocations, which could have been finalized, after all recommendations had been received. In such latter event, the State would have been able to ensure that MRC candidates had a choice to seek the division which they wanted, given their relative merit ranking. In such an event, by application of the rule indicated in Para 72 (iv) of the judgment in Ramesh Ram (supra), MRC candidates would have been provided with a choice of being treated as those belonging to the general category, or being treated as reserved category candidates.

16. In the light of the above discussion, the Court is of opinion that the findings and conclusions recorded by the Single Judge are reasonable. The following directions are consequently issued:

[2024:RJ-JD:32091] (9 of 10) [CW-3409/2021]

(a) The State shall issue a circular/order within four weeks, expressly stating that cadre allocations (to different divisions) made are only provisional and that such allocations would be made finally in a time bound manner, to be clearly indicated in such an order or circular;

(b) Await the receipt of all recommendations for 3 months and thereafter take up the process of determination of cadre allocations, in accordance with the rules and circulars applicable and complete such cadre allocations within 6 months from today;

(c) The State is further directed that cadre allocations made finally pursuant to the above directions, shall not be treated as transfers, but instead as revised initial postings of the concerned teachers.