Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Om Prakash (2024:Rj-Jd:48-Db) on 2 January, 2024
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati, Rajendra Prakash Soni
[2024:RJ-JD:48-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 34/2022
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Om Prakash S/o Shri Rajpal, Aged About 30 Years, Vpo
Tibbi, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 40
Years, Jharsar Kandhlan, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu,
Rajasthan.
3. Satveer S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Vpo
Pandreutiba, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
4. Ram Raj Meena S/o Shri Sunder Lal Meena, Aged About
33 Years, Village Dhannaka Johpra, Tehsil Deoli, District
Tonk, Rajasthan.
5. Ram Ratan S/o Shri Karni Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Vpo
Bhimsar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
6. Kuldeep Meena S/o Shri Subhash Chandra, Aged About
25 Years, Village Rajeev Nagar, Tehsil And District
Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
7. Hari Ram S/o Shri Shatan Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
Vpo Phirod, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
8. Satya Narayan Regar S/o Shri Ram Karan Regar, Aged
About 34 Years, Vpo Ronua, Bundi, District Bundi,
Rajasthan.
9. Bhairu Ram S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 26 Years,
Jeengar Mohalla, Gandhi Chowk, Tehsil Pokran, District
Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
10. Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Sardar Mal Meena, Aged
About 30 Years, Vpo Devka Harwada, Tehsil Amer, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
11. Arvind Kumar Gochar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged
About 24 Years, Village Kodkya, Tehsil Keshorai Patan,
(Downloaded on 03/01/2024 at 08:36:03 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:48-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-34/2022]
District Bundi, Rajasthan.
12. Kana Ram Prajapati S/o Shri Rampal Prajapati, Aged
About 33 Years, Vpo Dodwari, Tonk, District Tonk,
Rajasthan.
13. Vaseem Ahmad S/o Shri Daulat Khan, Aged About 28
Years, Guru Vatika, Goner Road, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
14. Brijesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Matadeen Swami, Aged
About 33 Years, Behind Govt. Primary School, Sevra,
Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
15. Sukhdev Regar S/o Shri Nanu Ram Regar, Aged About 34
Years, Vpo Shambhugarh, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
16. Parwat Singh Meena S/o Shri Ladu Lal Meena, Aged About
28 Years, Village Bindhya Bhata, Tehsil Jahazpur, District
Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
17. Rajendra Bhati S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
Vpo Kitalsar, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
18. Manoj Kumar Khateek S/o Shri Gopal Lal Khateek, Aged
About 32 Years, Vpo Bassi, Jaipur, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
19. Gaytri Pilaniya D/o Shri Babu Lal Pilaniya, Aged About 23
Years, Village Lodsar, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur,
Rajasthan.
20. Ganesh Garg S/o Shri Hanuman Ram Garg, Aged About
28 Years, Vpo Adarsh Dhoondha, Tehsil And District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
21. Durga Shankar Meena S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, Aged
About 27 Years, Village Dhikla, Post Kanwara, Tehsil
Dooni, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG a/w
Mr. Deepak Chandak
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
[2024:RJ-JD:48-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-34/2022]
Order
02/01/2024
1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of the learned Single
Judge dated 25.02.2021 concerning a batch of writ petitions. One
of the appeal arising out of the same being State of Rajasthan
and Another Vs. Suresh Kumar Jat and others (Spl. Appl.
Writ No. 357/2021 dated 22.11.2021) was decided in the
following manner:-
"Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties, in our view, the learned Single Judge could not
have passed the impugned order dated 25.02.2021.
Though multiple issues concerning the ultimate view
taken by the learned Single Judge in the recall or review
order dated 25.02.2021 arise, we would be well advised
not to elaborate these issues since the petition of
Rakesh Godara is pending before the learned Single
Judge in which these legal issues would and need to be
decided. The impugned order dated 25.02.2021,
however, would have to be set aside for the simple
reason that the learned Single Judge had exercised
extraordinary power of suo moto review of his own order
without their being any substantive proceedings
instituted by any of the persons, who claimed to be
aggrieved by the implementation of the order by the
Government. The petitioner Rakesh Godara had
challenged the select list drawn by the Government on
the basis of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
20.07.2020. It is still open to the learned Single Judge
to test the legality of the Government order in legal
terms in such proceedings having regard to the
judgment in case of Kuldeep Kumar and others.
However, on the ground that the list drawn by the
Government was on account of some lack of clarity in
the said order dated 20.07.2020, which needed to be
clarified or the directions issued needed to be reviewed,
the suo moto power to recall or review without full
hearing of all issues and all parties concerned, ought not
to have been exercised. We have reproduced the
relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge
in order to demonstrate that this objection of necessary
parties not being present before the Court was raised
more than once. This objection was rejected on the
[2024:RJ-JD:48-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-34/2022]
ground that none of the counsel could satisfy the Court
that the direction contained in para51 of the judgment
dated 20.07.2020, if read in isolation, is within the
precincts of the controversy and otherwise in conformity
with law. Whatever be the reasons and grounds for
review or recall of the earlier order, when it was pointed
out by the counsel appearing before the learned Single
Judge that any such exercise would result in adversely
affecting several persons, who by now have already
been appointed, such persons or at least some of them
ought to have been heard before unsettling the position
arising out of the earlier judgment. Even otherwise, the
question as to how the vacancies remained unfilled on
account of non-joining of the selected candidates versus
rejection of candidature upon document verification/non-
appearance of the candidates for document verification,
was not discussed in the original judgment. This issue
required full consideration and could not have been
decided by exercising suo moto powers of review
without full participation from all persons concerned. On
these grounds, we are inclined to reverse the order
dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge.
While so doing, it is further provided that whatever the
issues the petitioners Rakesh Godara and other shave
raised in connection with the select list prepared by the
State Government in furtherance of the order dated
20.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, would
be examined on the basis of the materials on record in
their pending petition/s.
With these observations and directions, the
impugned order is reversed. The appeals are disposed
of. Connected applications are also disposed of."
2. This order is in general terms and would apply in the present
appeal also.
3. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
6-Sudheer/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
