Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jhanwar Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 September, 2024
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:36474]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11875/2023
Gauri Shankar Jinger S/o Late Shri Chandra Ratan Jinger, Aged
About 42 Years, R/o 32-E-141, Behind Vivekanand School, Jai
Narain Vyas Colony, Bikaner (Raj)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Joint Director, College Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
5. Jhanwar Ram S/o Shri Mehraj Ram, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Outside Bhawami Pole, Opposite Ramdev Temple,
Jatawas, Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Raj)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 610/2023
Jhanwar Ram S/o Shri Mehraj Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o
Outside Bhawani Pole, Opposite Ramdev Temple, Jatawas,
Pokaran, District Jaisalmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Higher Education Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Commissioner, College Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Joint Director, College Education Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer.
5. Gauri Shankar Jinger S/o Late Shri Chandra Ratan Jinger,
(Downloaded on 04/09/2024 at 08:56:46 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:36474] (2 of 9) [CW-11875/2023]
Aged About 42 Years, R/o 3-E-141, Behind Vivekanand
School, Jai Narain Vyas Colony, Bikaner.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Varsha Bissa
Mr. Prakash Vyas
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pukhraj Suthar, DGC
Mr. Falgun Buch
Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani
Ms. Simram Mehta
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
REPORTABLE
03/09/2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Since both the writ petitions arise out of similar facts having
implication on each other, therefore, they are being heard and
decided by this common order.
3. Briefly, the facts giving rise to the present writ petitions are
that petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger, considering himself eligible in
all respects, applied for the post of College Lecturer (Philosophy)
in pursuance of the Advertisement issued by the respondents on
12.01.2015. The candidature of the petitioner-Gauri Shankar
Jinger was considered and since he was not meeting the criteria of
'good academic record' as per the stipulations made in the
Advertisement dated 12.01.2015, his candidature was not
favourably considered and, therefore, he was not selected on the
post of College Lecturer (Philosophy).
4. It is noted that the parameters and applicability of the 'good
academic record' was under consideration before this Court in a
[2024:RJ-JD:36474] (3 of 9) [CW-11875/2023]
bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.7545/2014 "Lalit Kumar Vs. The University Grants Commission
& Ors. While the litigation was pending consideration before this
Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the State
Government issued a Notification on 13.07.2021, wherein it was
held that as per Regulation, 2010 of the University Grants
Commission, the relaxation of 5% shall be given to the SC/ST and
PH Category candidates for consideration of their cases towards
'good academic record'. The embargo of consideration of 5%
relaxation towards 'good academic record' only in the post-
graduation was waived/mellowed down by this Notification dated
13.07.2021. In the wake of the Notification dated 13.07.2021, the
case of the petitioner was reconsidered by the respondent-RPSC
and the petitioner was placed at Sr. No.6-A and was recommended
for appointment by the State Government vide letter/order
30.09.2022 (Annex.11).
5. In pursuance of the order dated 30.09.2022, the petitioner-
Gauri Shankar Jinger was called for Counselling and Document
Verification and it was decided that the petitioner-Gauri Shankar
Jinger may be granted appointment on the post of College
Lecturer (Philosophy). As a natural consequence of the order
having been passed in favour of the petitioner-Gaur Shankar
Jinger, the petitioner-Jhanwar Ram (petitioner in the connected
writ petition bearing No.610/2023) was issued a Show Cause
Notice on 28.12.2022 as he was the last candidate in the select
list for appointment on the post of College Lecturer. In these
circumstances, the petitioner-Jhanwar Ram approached this Court
by way of filing a writ petition and the co-ordinate Bench of this
[2024:RJ-JD:36474] (4 of 9) [CW-11875/2023]
Court issued notices and stayed further proceedings of the Show
Cause Notice dated 28.12.2022. Thus, the petitioner-Jhanwar Ram
continued to serve the respondents on the post of College Lecturer
(Philosophy). Though the petitioner-Jhanwar Ram was given Show
Cause Notice for dispensing with his services, but the petitioner-
Gauri Shankar Jinger has not been given appointment by the
respondents, therefore, petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger
approached this Court by way of filing the present writ petition.
6. Mr. Buch, learned counsel for the petitioner-Gauri Shankar
Jinger submits that in light of the State Government's order dated
13.07.2021 and the recommendations of the RPSC dated
30.09.2022, the petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger is required to be
given appointment on the post of College Lecturer in subject
Philosophy as he is meeting all the criteria laid down by the
respondents. He, therefore prays that the respondents may be
directed to immediately issue appointment order in favour of the
petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Bissa, learned counsel for the
petitioner-Jhanwar Ram submits that the petitioner has not
misrepresented before the respondents as he was duly selected in
the selection process undertaken by the respondent-Department.
As a natural consequence, he was appointed as College Lecturer
(Philosophy) and is rendering his services from the date of his
appointment till date. She submits that since the respondents are
having a number of posts lying vacant in the Department,
therefore, the services of the petitioner-Jhanwar Ram should not
be dispensed with in light of the judgment passed by this Court in
a bunch of writ petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition
[2024:RJ-JD:36474] (5 of 9) [CW-11875/2023]
No.8951/2022 "Neeraj Kumari Meena Vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors." decided on 07.12.2023. She, therefore, prays
that the writ petition preferred by the petitioner-Jhanwar Ram
may be allowed and the appointment given to him may be
protected and he may be allowed to continue on the post of
College Lecturer.
8. Considering the rival contentions, this Court on 07.08.2024
directed the learned State Counsel to file an Additional Affidavit
with respect to availability of vacant posts of College Lecturer
(Philosophy) in the respondent-Department.
9. In pursuance of the directions issued by this Court, an
Additional Affidavit has been filed by the respondent-State
reflecting the position that 17 posts of Lecturer (Philosophy) are
lying vacant with the respondent-Department, out of which, a
requisition was sent to the RPSC in the year 2022 for selections
on 11 posts and the process of selection is still being carried out
by the recruiting agency i.e. RPSC.
10. In these circumstances, the learned State Counsel submits
that although there is no fault on the part of the petitioners but
the State is under an obligation to give Show Cause Notice to the
petitioner-Jhanwar Ram for making way for appointment of
petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger in light of the developments as
narrated in the preceding paras. Learned State Counsel very fairly
submits that petitioner-Jhanwar Ram has not misrepresented any
fact and since he was falling in the merit list, therefore, on the
recommendations made by the RPSC, he was given appointment.
Learned State Counsel submits that as per his instructions and the
[2024:RJ-JD:36474] (6 of 9) [CW-11875/2023]
Additional Affidavit filed, vacancies of College Lecturer
(Philosophy) are still available with the respondent-Department.
11. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have
gone through the relevant record of the case.
12. The chronology of events narrated above very clearly show
that the petitioner-Jhanwar Ram was selected by the RPSC and
was recommended for appointment on the post of Lecturer
(Philosophy) in pursuance of the Advertisement issued by the
respondents on 12.01.2015 and after his appointment, he is
discharging the duties as such to the utmost satisfaction of the
respondents. By efflux of events, the State Government has
changed the criteria for consideration of 'good academic record'
vide their letter dated 13.07.2021 and in furtherance thereof, the
candidature of the petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger was favourably
considered and he was recommended for appointment on the post
of College Lecturer (Philosophy) by the RPSC. Since the case of
the petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger has been recommended for
appointment, the State is under an obligation to give him
appointment as he is meeting all the eligible criteria for the post of
College Lecturer (Philosophy).
13. Considering the fact that the petitioner-Jhanwar Ram has
served the respondent-Department for a pretty long time now,
though under the interim orders passed by this Court, the services
of petitioner-Jhanwar Ram can be continued in light of the
judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Neeraj Kumari
Meena (supra), wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has
held as under:-
[2024:RJ-JD:36474] (7 of 9) [CW-11875/2023]
"15. This Court also observes that the petitioners appeared in
the examination in question with bona fide belief and there was
no misconduct on the part of the petitioners, and the
respondents themselves duly appointed them as per the marks
obtained by the petitioners in the examination in question,
which clearly reflects that they were falling in the earlier merit
list. Therefore, at a belated stage, they cannot be ousted from
the employment by depriving them of their legitimate right to
continue as an employee, on the basis of the faulty exercise so
conducted by the respondents.
16. This Court further observes that the petitioners were
working on the post in question for more than 2 years, and it is
a settled proposition of law, as per the afore-quoted
judgments, that once the persons are selected and appointed
as per the merit list and there is no fraud, mischief,
misrepresentation or mala fide on their part, as is with the
petitioners in the present case, then their continuous services
cannot be terminated only on the ground of revision in cut off
marks, whereby they were sought to be ousted from the
employment in question, that too at a quite belated stage, and
thus, the petitioners are suitable to hold the posts in question.
17. Thus, in light of the aforementioned observations as well
as in view of the afore-quoted precedent laws and looking into
the factual matrix of the present case, the present petitions are
allowed and the impugned orders dated 24.06.2022 &
01.06.2022 (CW No.8951/2022), 01.06.2022 &
02.06.2022 (CW No.8559/2022), 08.06.2022 (CW
No.8661/2022), 21.06.2022 (CW No.8935/2022),
21.06.2022 (CW No.8974/2022), 05.07.2022 (CW
No.9585/2022), 05.07.2022 (CW No.9610/2022),
05.07.2022 (CW No.9613/2022) and 12.07.2022 (Cw
No.9916/2022) are hereby quashed and set aside. The
respondents are accordingly directed to pass appropriate orders
for the continuance of the petitioners on their respective post
i.e. Constable (GD)/Constable (Driver), with all consequential
benefits. All pending applications stand disposed of."
14. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is also a Court of equity. It is not only within
its power but also the duty of the High Court while exercising such
[2024:RJ-JD:36474] (8 of 9) [CW-11875/2023]
a power to advance the ends of justice and to uproot injustice.
While granting relief, the High Court is expected to balance
equities by passing an appropriate order which justice may
demand and equities may project. Courts of equity should go
much further, both to give and refuse relief in order to better
serve the ends of justice. The granting of relief or withholding it
would depend upon considerations of justice, equity and good
conscience.
15. To settle the balance of equity in the present case, keeping in
mind the fact that the vacancies are available with the
respondent-Department, ends of justice will be met if the
appointment of petitioner-Jhanwar Ram is protected by continuing
him in the service on the post of College Lecturer (Philosophy) and
a direction is issued to the respondents for appointment of
petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger on the post of College Lecturer
(Philosophy), whose name has been recommended by the
Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
16. Thus, the writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.610/2023)
filed by petitioner-Jhanwar Ram merits acceptance and the same
is allowed. The Show Cause Notice dated 28.12.2022 issued to
him for termination of his services is quashed and set aside and
he is allowed to continue on the post of College Lecturer
(Philosophy).
17. Now coming to the fact that petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger's
case has been recommended by the RPSC as he fulfills all the
eligibility criteria for appointment, the writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No.11875/2023) filed by petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger
also stands allowed and the respondents are directed to grant
[2024:RJ-JD:36474] (9 of 9) [CW-11875/2023]
appointment to the petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger on the post of
College Lecturer (Philosophy) which is lying vacant with the
respondents, within a period of four weeks from today.
18. It is made clear that the petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger will
be given all the notional benefits from the date petitioner-Jhanwar
Ram has been given appointment and the petitioner-Gauri
Shankar Jinger will be entitled to all the service benefits from the
date on which he assumes charge on the post of College Lecturer
(Philosophy).
19. Stay petitions as well as other pending applications, if any,
shall stand disposed of.
20. Photocopy of this order be placed in the connected file.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
44-45-/Vivek Mishra/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
