Dismissed

Hemraj Merota and Ors. v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2013CW/16493/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed writ petitions challenging termination of provisional appointments due to merit list revisions. It held that re-evaluation is valid and candidates lacking requisite eligibility marks must be terminated. However, eligible candidates falling out of merit were granted future appointment rights over current vacancies.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners allowed to appear in next selection without age bar; termination maintained for non-qualified candidates; salary to be paid for period served.

Hemraj Merota and Ors. Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

¶3

JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER

¶5

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15788/2013 Hemendra Kumar Jangid & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶6

AND

¶7

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15777/2013 Teena Kumawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶8

AND

¶9

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15781/2013 Jitendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶10

AND

¶11

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15791/2013 Puran Mal Swami & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶12

AND

¶13

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15844/2013 Soniya Verma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶14

AND

¶15

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15856/2013 Vijendra Singh & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶16

AND

¶17

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15867/2013

¶18

Rakesh Kumar Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶19

AND

¶20

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15877/2013 Mangi Lal Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶21

AND

¶22

¶23

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15879 /2013 Haresh Saraswat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶24

AND

¶25

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15882/2013 Indira Poonia & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶26

AND

¶27

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15907/2013 Gajanand Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶28

AND

¶29

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15922/2013 Jitendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶30

AND

¶31

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15923/2013 Jitendra Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶32

AND

¶33

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15924/2013 Mukesh Kumar Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶34

AND

¶35

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15925/2013 Hemraj Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶36

AND

¶37

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15963/2013 Mohan Murari Katara & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶38

AND

¶39

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15965/2013 Pooja Bhagchandani versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶40

AND

¶41

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15966/2013

¶42

¶43

Sarita Kumari versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶44

AND

¶45

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15967/2013 Rashmi Kashyap & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶46

AND

¶47

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15989/2013 Sidhram Choudhary & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶48

AND

¶49

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15993/2013 Priti Gurjar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶50

AND

¶51

SB Civil Writ Petition No.15994 /2013 Seema Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶52

AND

¶53

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15999/2013 Ashok Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶54

AND

¶55

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16010/2013 Bhatti Lal Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶56

AND

¶57

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16014/2013 Vijay Singh Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶58

AND

¶59

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16018/2013

¶60

Suresh Kumar Bairwa & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶61

AND

¶62

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16072/2013 Poonam Chouhan versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶63

¶64

AND

¶65

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16087/2013 Suman Bajya versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶66

AND

¶67

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16088 /2013 Babu Lal Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶68

AND

¶69

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16090/2013 Mukesh Kumar & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶70

AND

¶71

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16091/2013 Bhupendra Kumar & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶72

AND

¶73

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16092/2013 Sita Ram versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶74

AND

¶75

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16093/2013 Sanjay Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶76

AND

¶77

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16094 /2013 Manoj Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶78

AND

¶79

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16095/2013 Vinod Kumar Meena & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶80

AND

¶81

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16097/2013 Soniya & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶82

¶83

AND

¶84

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16098/2013 Ishwar Kumar Soni & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶85

AND

¶86

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16100/2013 Hari Kishan versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶87

AND

¶88

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16101/2013 Radha Kumawat & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶89

AND

¶90

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16109/2013 Shri Krishn Awtar Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶91

AND

¶92

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16112/2013 Kamla Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶93

AND

¶94

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16114/2013 Madan Lal Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶95

AND

¶96

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16115/2013 Jitendra Singh Ola versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶97

AND

¶98

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16116/2013 Ajeet Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶99

AND

¶100

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16117 /2013 Devi Sahai Banshiwal & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶101

AND

¶102

¶103

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16118/2013 Manish Mittal & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶104

AND

¶105

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16119/2013 Okesh Kumar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶106

AND

¶107

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16121/2013 Sneha Nemiyaversus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶108

AND

¶109

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16126/2013 Ami Lal versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶110

AND

¶111

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16127/2013 Suman Gahlot & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶112

AND

¶113

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16128/2013 Sanjay Kumar Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶114

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16129 /2013 Kataria Smita versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶115

AND

¶116

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16130/2013 Chandra Shekhar Sharma & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶117

AND

¶118

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16137/2013 Prem Chand Kumawat & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶119

AND

¶120

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16138/2013 Balraj & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶121

¶122

AND

¶123

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16139/2013 Pradeep Kumar Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶124

AND

¶125

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16140/2013 Ashok Kumar Saini & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶126

AND

¶127

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16141/2013 Rudmal Bunkar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶128

AND

¶129

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16152/2013 Bharat Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶130

AND

¶131

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16154/2013 Sunil Kumar Gupta versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶132

AND

¶133

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16155 /2013 Rekha Sharma & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶134

AND

¶135

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16157/2013 Ajay Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶136

AND

¶137

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16158/2013 Anuradha Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶138

AND

¶139

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16160/2013 Suman Kumari & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶140

¶141

AND

¶142

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16162/2013 Hitesh Kanwar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶143

AND

¶144

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16163 /2013 Jitendra Dhabai & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶145

AND

¶146

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16164/2013 Nand Ram Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶147

AND

¶148

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16165/2013 Subhash Chand Barkesiya & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶149

AND

¶150

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16166/2013 Ram Chandra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶151

AND

¶152

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16167/2013 Sumitra versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶153

AND

¶154

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16168/2013 Shankar Lal Jangir & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶155

AND

¶156

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16179/2013 Krishna Soni & anr versus State of Rajasthan & anr

¶157

AND

¶158

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16181/2013 Sumer Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶159

AND

¶160

¶161

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16183/2013 Shiv Kumar Sukariya versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶162

AND

¶163

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16184/2013 Sunita Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶164

AND

¶165

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16186/2013 Bhagwati Kumari & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶166

AND

¶167

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16201/2013 Raj Kumar Disania & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶168

AND

¶169

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16202/2013 Vishnu Tailor versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶170

AND

¶171

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16203/2013 Purshottam Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶172

AND

¶173

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16204/2013 Krishna Avtar Lakshkar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶174

AND

¶175

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16205/2013 Kamlesh Kumar Prajapat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶176

AND

¶177

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16206/2013 Rajesh Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶178

AND

¶179

¶180

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16207/2013 Sunita Rani versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶181

AND

¶182

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16208 /2013 Lokesh Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶183

AND

¶184

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16209 /2013 Sitaram Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶185

AND

¶186

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16213/2013 Dinesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶187

AND

¶188

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16214/2013 Praveen Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶189

AND

¶190

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16217/2013 Jaipal & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶191

AND

¶192

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16218 /2013 Prahlad Sahai Jat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶193

AND

¶194

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16219/2013 Praveen Pareek versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶195

AND

¶196

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16222/2013 Mukesh Kumar Surela versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶197

AND

¶198

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16223/2013

¶199

¶200

Rekha Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶201

AND

¶202

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16225/2013 Sunil & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶203

AND

¶204

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16226/2013 Indrajeet Yadav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶205

AND

¶206

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16227/2013 Manisha Malav & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶207

AND

¶208

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16228/2013 Abdul Alim Khan versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶209

AND

¶210

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16229/2013 Jai Singh & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶211

AND

¶212

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16242/2013 Rekha Verma & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶213

AND

¶214

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16262/2013 Om Prakash Fageria versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶215

AND

¶216

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16267/2013 Kaila Devi versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶217

AND

¶218

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16268/2013 Rajesh Kumar Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶219

¶220

AND

¶221

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16271/2013 Rajendra Singh Meel & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶222

AND

¶223

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16273/2013 Ved Prakash Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶224

AND

¶225

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16275/2013 Mahendra Kumar Harijan versus Secretary to Govt. & ors

¶226

AND

¶227

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16276/2013 Ram Kumar Yadav versus Secretary to Govt & ors

¶228

AND

¶229

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16277 /2013 Kuldeep Singh versus Secretary to Govt. & ors

¶230

AND

¶231

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16278/2013 Om Prakash & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶232

AND

¶233

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16279 /2013 Shiv Raj Suthar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶234

AND

¶235

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16280/2013

¶236

Siya Ram Meena & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶237

AND

¶238

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16281/2013 Gulab Chand Lodha & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶239

¶240

AND

¶241

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16282/2013 Aruna Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶242

AND

¶243

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16284/2013 Prena Shekhawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶244

AND

¶245

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16289/2013 Rajendra Jat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶246

AND

¶247

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16291/2013 Shiv Singh Dhakad and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶248

AND

¶249

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16294/2013 Sohana Ram versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶250

AND

¶251

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16295/2013 Shobha Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶252

AND

¶253

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16297/2013 Rajveer Singh and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶254

AND

¶255

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16299/2013 Surendra Kumar Jhajharia and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶256

AND

¶257

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16301/2013 Asha Kumari Bagari versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶258

¶259

AND

¶260

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16302/2013 Ajay Pal Singh and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶261

AND

¶262

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16303/2013 Yogesh Kumar and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶263

AND

¶264

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16305/2013 Sohan Lal Kumawat and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶265

AND

¶266

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16307/2013 Inderjeet Singh Jat and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶267

AND

¶268

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16308/2013 Kamal Kumar Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶269

AND

¶270

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16309/2013 Nidhi Khandelwal and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶271

AND

¶272

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16311/2013 Mamta Mali versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶273

AND

¶274

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16312/2013 Jyoti Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶275

AND

¶276

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16314/2013 Manju Yadav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶277

AND

¶278

¶279

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16315/2013 Rakesh Kumar Vashanav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶280

AND

¶281

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16317/2013 Rohit Dagur versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶282

AND

¶283

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16320/2013 Manoj Kumar Choudhary and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶284

AND

¶285

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16321/2013 Mahesh Yogi and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶286

AND

¶287

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16324/2013 Deeksha Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶288

AND

¶289

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16325/2013 Manish Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶290

AND

¶291

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16327/2013 Jitendra Verma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶292

AND

¶293

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16330/2013 Papita and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶294

AND

¶295

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16332/2013 Rishabh Dixit and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶296

AND

¶297

¶298

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16338/2013 Surendra Kumar Bagaria and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶299

AND

¶300

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16340/2013 Inder Pal Kantia versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶301

AND

¶302

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16341/2013 Subhash Chand Jat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶303

AND

¶304

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16342/2013 Tulsi Ram Tailor versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶305

AND

¶306

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16343/2013 Hari Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶307

AND

¶308

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16344/2013 Pragati Jain versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶309

AND

¶310

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16345/2013 Praveen Kumar Pareek versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶311

AND

¶312

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16346/2013 Surendra Kumar and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶313

AND

¶314

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16347/2013 Indra Singh and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶315

AND

¶316

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16348/2013

¶317

¶318

Raj Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶319

AND

¶320

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16349/2013 Rajveer Singh Kulhari and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶321

AND

¶322

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16350/2013 Taruna Yadav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶323

AND

¶324

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16351/2013 Yogesh Chandra Vashistha Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶325

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16352/2013 Mukesh Kumar Bhagwat and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶326

AND

¶327

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16354/2013 Sunil Kumar and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶328

AND

¶329

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16355/2013 Toshif Ahmed Ansari versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶330

AND

¶331

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16356/2013

¶332

Ram Niwas Gurjar and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶333

AND

¶334

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16357/2013 Duleechand and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶335

AND

¶336

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16358/2013

¶337

Kaml Singh Dagur and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶338

AND

¶339

¶340

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16359/2013 Chain Swaroop Panwar and Ors.versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶341

AND

¶342

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16360/2013 Vinod Kumar Balai versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶343

AND

¶344

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16363/2013 Bharat Kumar Mehta and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶345

AND

¶346

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16365/2013 Vijay Laxmi Hada and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶347

AND

¶348

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16366/2013 Pankaj Kumar Chippa and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶349

AND

¶350

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16368/2013 Manju Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶351

AND

¶352

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16369/2013 Rakesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶353

AND

¶354

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16372/2013

¶355

Sushil Kumar Jatav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶356

AND

¶357

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16374/2013 Dilip Kumar Bairwa versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶358

AND

¶359

¶360

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16375/2013 Nanchhu Ram Saini versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶361

AND

¶362

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16376/2013 Manohar Lal Yadav and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶363

AND

¶364

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16377/2013 Jitendra Kumar Verma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶365

AND

¶366

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16378/2013 Suresh Chand Jatav versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶367

AND

¶368

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16379/2013 Naresh Kumar Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶369

AND

¶370

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16380/2013

¶371

Jugal Kishore Sharma and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶372

AND

¶373

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16381/2013 Devendra Mundel and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶374

AND

¶375

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16382/2013 Manish Raja versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶376

AND

¶377

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16383/2013 Vimla Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶378

AND

¶379

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16399/2013

¶380

¶381

Abdul Rahid and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶382

AND

¶383

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16400/2013 Indra Kumar Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶384

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16402/2013 Sanjay Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶385

AND

¶386

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16403/2013 Ganesh Ram Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶387

AND

¶388

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16405/2013 Mamta Kumari versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶389

AND

¶390

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16413/2013 Vijendra Singh and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶391

AND

¶392

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16414/2013 Bhoopendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶393

AND

¶394

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16415/2013 Yogita Shekhawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶395

AND

¶396

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16417/2013 Mast Ram Meena and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶397

AND

¶398

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16422/2013 Sarita Yadav and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶399

AND

¶400

¶401

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16423/2013 Kamal Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶402

AND

¶403

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16424/2013 Gaurav Kumar Adddania Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶404

AND

¶405

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16426/2013 Mamta Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶406

AND

¶407

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16428/2013 Rajendra Singh Yadav and Anr. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶408

AND

¶409

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16430/2013 Rafiq Mohammad and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶410

AND

¶411

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16431/2013 Mohammad Sadik versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶412

AND

¶413

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16432/2013 Mukhram versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶414

AND

¶415

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16433/2013 Geeta Kumar Meena & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶416

AND

¶417

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16434/2013 Amod Shrivastava and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶418

AND

¶419

¶420

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16435/2013 Rati Ram versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶421

AND

¶422

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16436/2013 Maya Pacherwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶423

AND

¶424

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16437/2013 Alka Jhorar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶425

AND

¶426

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16438/2013 Arjun Lal Jat and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶427

AND

¶428

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16439/2013 Rameshwar Prasad Bobasya ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶429

AND

¶430

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16441/2013 Pushpa Digarwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶431

AND

¶432

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16442/2013 Surendra Kumar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶433

AND

¶434

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16443/2013 Suresh Meena and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶435

AND

¶436

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16444/2013 Sayar Bano versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶437

AND

¶438

¶439

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16447/2013 Amit Kumar Saran versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶440

AND

¶441

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16448/2013 Hukam Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶442

AND

¶443

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16449/2013 Shubha Ram versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶444

AND

¶445

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16451/2013 Sajid Rahim versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶446

AND

¶447

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16454/2013 Pinky Tanwar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶448

AND

¶449

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16455/2013 Sadhna and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶450

AND

¶451

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16457/2013 Ashok Kumar Meghwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶452

AND

¶453

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16458/2013

¶454

Hanuman Prasad Meghwal and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶455

AND

¶456

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16459/2013 Atmaram Gurjar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶457

AND

¶458

¶459

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16460/2013 Saroj Kumar and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶460

AND

¶461

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16461/2013 Samta Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶462

AND

¶463

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16462/2013 Sudesh Kumar Verma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶464

AND

¶465

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16463/2013 Sultan Singh and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶466

AND

¶467

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16465/2013 Arati Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶468

AND

¶469

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16468/2013 Ramawatar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶470

AND

¶471

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16469/2013 Ramesh Chand Meena and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶472

AND

¶473

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16470/2013 Ajay Mathur versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶474

AND

¶475

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16472/2013 Jalendra Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶476

AND

¶477

¶478

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16473/2013 Rakesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶479

AND

¶480

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16474/2013 Vandana Kumari Gupta and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶481

AND

¶482

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16477/2013 Mamta Khateek versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶483

AND

¶484

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16478/2013 Raj Kumar Choudhary and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶485

AND

¶486

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16479/2013 Sandhya versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶487

AND

¶488

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16481/2013 Rakesh Singh Rajpoot and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶489

AND

¶490

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16483/2013 Deshraj Arya and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶491

AND

¶492

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16484/2013 Tejpal Singh and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶493

AND

¶494

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16485/2013 Kamlesh Kumar Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶495

AND

¶496

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16486/2013

¶497

¶498

Heera Lal Bairwa versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶499

AND

¶500

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16487/2013 Lokendra Gurjar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶501

AND

¶502

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16488/2013 Deen Dayal Sharma and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶503

AND

¶504

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16489/2013 Nawal Kishore Mahana and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶505

AND

¶506

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16490/2013 Smt Munita Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶507

AND

¶508

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16491/2013 Ambika Dhabhai versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶509

AND

¶510

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16492/2013 Charan Singh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶511

AND

¶512

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16493/2013 Hemraj Merota and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶513

AND

¶514

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16494/2013 Shyam Sunder Verma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶515

AND

¶516

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16495/2013 Manju Saini and ors versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶517

¶518

AND

¶519

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16496/2013 Babu Lal Jat versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶520

AND

¶521

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16497/2013 Ashok Kumar Meena and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶522

AND

¶523

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16498/2013 Indu Bala Garg and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶524

AND

¶525

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16499/2013

¶526

Ram Dayal Meena and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶527

AND

¶528

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16500/2013 Nissar Mohammad and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶529

AND

¶530

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16501/2013 Sharmila Gouri versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶531

AND

¶532

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16502/2013 Santosh Kumar Sain and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶533

AND

¶534

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16503/2013 Alpana Jain and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶535

AND

¶536

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16504/2013 Madan Lal Bhamu versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶537

¶538

AND

¶539

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16506/2013 Mahesh Kumar Verma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶540

AND

¶541

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16507/2013 Ram Naresh Meena and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶542

AND

¶543

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16509/2013 Motilal Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶544

AND

¶545

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16510/2013 Suresh Kumar Buldak versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶546

AND

¶547

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16511/2013 Keerti Saini versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶548

AND

¶549

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16512/2013 Poonam Swarnkar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶550

AND

¶551

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16513/2013 Poonam and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶552

AND

¶553

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16514/2013 Aditi Shandilya versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶554

AND

¶555

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16515/2013 Babulal Bairwa and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶556

AND

¶557

¶558

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16517/2013 Divya Sharma and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶559

AND

¶560

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16518/2013 Rakesh Kumar ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶561

AND

¶562

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16519/2013 Varun Pareek and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶563

AND

¶564

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16520/2013 Sukhdev Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶565

AND

¶566

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16521/2013 Ram Gopal Dhakar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶567

AND

¶568

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16522/2013 Pradhan Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶569

AND

¶570

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16523/2013 Rituraj Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶571

AND

¶572

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16524/2013 Nihal Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶573

AND

¶574

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16526/2013 Suresh Kumar Dukariya ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶575

AND

¶576

¶577

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16527/2013 Bharti and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶578

AND

¶579

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16530/2013 Anjana Sharma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶580

AND

¶581

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16531/2013 Leena Jarwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶582

AND

¶583

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16533/2013 Data Ram Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶584

AND

¶585

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16534/2013 Kalpana Sharma and ors.versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶586

AND

¶587

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16535/2013 Sunita and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶588

AND

¶589

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16538/2013 Rameshwar Prasad and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶590

AND

¶591

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16543/2013 Sanwarmal Jat versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶592

AND

¶593

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16546/2013

¶594

Neeraj Kumar Yadav and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶595

AND

¶596

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16550/2013

¶597

¶598

Rajendra Kumar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶599

AND

¶600

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16570/2013 Priya versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶601

AND

¶602

SB Civil Writ Petition No. /165712013 Usha Ujjwal and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶603

AND

¶604

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16572/2013 Sudesh Kumar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶605

AND

¶606

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16585/2013 Smt. Pushpa Rani versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶607

AND

¶608

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16586/2013 Pawan Kumar Sharma and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶609

AND

¶610

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16591/2013 Deepak Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶611

AND

¶612

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16594/2013 Smt. Arti Sharma and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶613

AND

¶614

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16596/2013 Barkha Gangawat versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶615

AND

¶616

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16600/2013 Neetu Sharma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶617

¶618

AND

¶619

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16606/2013 Anju Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶620

AND

¶621

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16613/2013 Saroj Kumari versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶622

AND

¶623

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16617/2013 Surendra Kumar Bairwa versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶624

AND

¶625

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16620/2013 Indu Bala Sharma and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶626

AND

¶627

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16623/2013

¶628

Bijendra Kumar Mahala and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶629

AND

¶630

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16624/2013 Krishna Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶631

AND

¶632

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16625/2013 Smt. Vinod Jangid versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶633

AND

¶634

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16629/2013 Siyaram Nat versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶635

AND

¶636

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16689/2013 Nida Masoom and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶637

¶638

AND

¶639

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16695/2013 Anita Kumawat and ors versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶640

AND

¶641

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16731/2013 Sushila Rawat and anr versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶642

AND

¶643

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16734/2013 Naresh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶644

AND

¶645

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16739/2013 Laxmi Devi versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶646

AND

¶647

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16742/2013 Sheela Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶648

AND

¶649

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16743/2013

¶650

Shiv Narayan Kumawat and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶651

AND

¶652

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16744/2013 Harish Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶653

AND

¶654

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16748/2013 Brij Pal Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶655

AND

¶656

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16752/2013 Vandana Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶657

¶658

AND

¶659

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16754/2013 Sushila Mourya and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶660

AND

¶661

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16762/2013 Ram Chandra Meena anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶662

AND

¶663

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16767/2013 Raju Singh and anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶664

AND

¶665

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16768/2013 Ms. Nisha Singh Palawat anr. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶666

AND

¶667

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16772/2013 Farzana versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶668

AND

¶669

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16775/2013 Meena Goyal versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶670

AND

¶671

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16781/2013 Ramekesh Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶672

AND

¶673

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16786/2013

¶674

Mool Chand Pingoliya and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶675

AND

¶676

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16809/2013 Sarita Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶677

AND

¶678

¶679

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16811/2013 Jitendra Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶680

AND

¶681

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16829/2013 Ritesh Kumar Agarwal versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶682

AND

¶683

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16839/2013 Babulal versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶684

AND

¶685

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16840/2013 Arvinash Yadav versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶686

AND

¶687

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16841/2013 Asha Kumari versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶688

AND

¶689

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16852/2013 Sunil Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶690

AND

¶691

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16866/2013

¶692

Mukut Bihari Dvivedi and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶693

AND

¶694

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16867/2013 Banwari Lal Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶695

AND

¶696

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16868/2013 Pushpendra Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶697

AND

¶698

¶699

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16872/2013 Jasvinder Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶700

AND

¶701

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16873/2013 Yogesh Kumar and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶702

AND

¶703

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16874/2013 Rekha Jhala versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶704

AND

¶705

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16875/2013 Ramalakhan Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶706

AND

¶707

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16876/2013 Sufiya Sultana versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶708

AND

¶709

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16883/2013 Shamin Bano versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶710

AND

¶711

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16893/2013 Lalit Mohan Saini versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶712

AND

¶713

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16901/2013 Pinky Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶714

AND

¶715

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16922/2013 Neetu Sahu versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶716

AND

¶717

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16935/2013

¶718

¶719

Chanchal Joshi versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶720

AND

¶721

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16940/2013 Mahaveer Meena versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶722

AND

¶723

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16943/2013 Rameshwar Prasad Bairwa versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶724

AND

¶725

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16952/2013 Puja Kumari versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶726

AND

¶727

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16955/2013 Rajni Bala Garg versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶728

AND

¶729

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16986/2013 Rajesh Kumar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶730

AND

¶731

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17021/2013 Sanjy Choudhary versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶732

AND

¶733

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17060/2013 Gajendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶734

AND

¶735

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17064/2013 Ramjilal Kumawat and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶736

AND

¶737

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17116/2013

¶738

¶739

Vinod Kumar Gurjar versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶740

AND

¶741

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17118/2013 Priyanka Divedi and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶742

AND

¶743

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17121/2013 Harish Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶744

AND

¶745

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17166/2013 Firoza Khan versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶746

AND

¶747

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17205/2013 Smeena Verma versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶748

AND

¶749

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17398/2013 Pratap Singh versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶750

AND

¶751

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17399/2013 Saroj Kuldeep versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶752

AND

¶753

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17528/2013 Manju Ranawan and ors. versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶754

AND

¶755

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17533/2013 Chanchal Koli versus State of Rajasthan and ors.

¶756

AND

¶757

¶758

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16516/2013 Sanju Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶759

AND

¶760

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18825/2013 Daya Shankar Kumawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶761

AND

¶762

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18819/2013 Mahendra Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶763

AND

¶764

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18809/2013 Preetam Meena versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶765

AND

¶766

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16537/2013 Sonia Patan versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶767

AND

¶768

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18167/2013 Lalita Prajapat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶769

AND

¶770

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17431/2013 Poonam Yadav versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶771

AND

¶772

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17019/2013 Vijay Jhajhariya versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶773

AND

¶774

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 18918/2013 Shama Mansuri versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶775

AND

¶776

SB Civil Writ Petition No.19008 /2013

¶777

¶778

Neetu Kumari versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶779

AND

¶780

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16212/2013 Rajendra Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶781

AND

¶782

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16827/2013 Pankaj Upadhyaya versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶783

AND

¶784

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16774/2013 Suraj Bhan Singh versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶785

AND

¶786

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 16965/2013 Dinesh Kumar Chandel versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶787

AND

¶788

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17565/2013 Mahendra Pal Atal versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶789

AND

¶790

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17935/2013 Santosh Palawat versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶791

AND

¶792

SB Civil Writ Petition No.18048/2013 Vimla Jangid versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶793

AND

¶794

SB Civil Writ Petition No.16353/2013 Gopal Lal Teli versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶795

AND

¶796

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 20333/2013 Kavita versus State of Rajasthan & ors

¶797

¶798

AND

¶799

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 17887/2013 Vijay Kumar versus State of Rajasthan & ors

Date of Order :

19^th December, 2013

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI

¶804

Mr Vigyan Shah Mr Ram Pratap Saini Mr Pradeep Mathur Mr Vijay Pathak Mr Vinod Singhal Mr SS Naruka Mr Ashwini Jaiman Mr Anoop Dhand Mr Tanveer Ahmed Mr Sunil Kumar Jain Mr RD Meena Mr Gajender Sharma Mr Raj Kumar Sharma Mr Manish Choudhary Mr Suresh Kumar Mr CP Sharma Mr SD Sharma Mr Samay Singh Mr Ram Manohar Sharma Mr SK Pareek Mr Shashank Agrawal Mr Sumit Khandelwal Mr Sandeep Garssa Mr Raj Kumar Saini Mr Dinesh Sharma Mr JM Saxena Mr Sunil Kumar Singodiya Mr Udai Bhan Singh Mr Ashish Saksena Mr JR Choudhary Mr MI Abbasi Mr Naveen Dhuwan Mr Neeraj Joshi

¶805

¶806

Mr Tarun Choudhary Mr Ram Babu Sharma Mr Ramavtar Bochalya Mr RS Bhardwaj Mr Harsh Saini Mr Sanjay Mehrishi Mr OP Mishra Mr DK Bhardwaj Mr Khalid Mehmood Mr Banwari Sharma Mr Jeetendra Kumar Sharma Mr FR Meena Mr Prahlad Sharma Mr Kailash Kataria Mr Govind Gupta Mr Rajendra Yadav Mr Mohit Gupta Mr Manish Sharma Mr Raghunandan Sharma Mr Vinod Kumar Gupta Mr Raj Kumar Goyal Mr Amit Singh Shekhawat Mr NK Singhal Mr DS Dhariwal Mr Rajesh Bhamboo Mr Vijay Punia Mr Sanjay Khedar Mr Rameshwar Sharma Mr Mukesh Bijarnia Mr Hemendra Goyal Mr Rajendra Yadav Mr Praveen Sharma Mr Kailash Sharma Mr Amit Kumar Gupta Mr Balveer Singh Beniwal Mr SN Meena Mr Hoshiya Singh Arya Mr Nidhi Khandelwal Mr TL Pandey Mr Raj Kumar Kasana Mr SK Beniwal Mr Dharmendra Agrawal Mr Mahendra Nahar Mr Rajeev Sogarwal Mr RB Mathur Mr RK Saini

¶807

¶808

Mr Manoj Avasthi Mr Arvind Kumar Arora Mr RK Gauttam Mr Vijay Dutt Sharma Mr Vikas Kabra Mr Poonam Chand Bhandari Mr Praveen Balwada Mr Himanshu Jain Mr Pradeep Malik Mr Bharat Yadav Mr Girish Khandelwal Mr Jaideep Singh Rathore Mr HR Kumawat Mr Rahul Choudhary Mr Ravindra Tomar Mr Jitendra Bajaj Mr Rajendra Soni Mr Lalit Sharma Mr Kartar Singh Mr Neeraj K Tiwari Mr Sajid Ali Mr Rajendra Prasad Sharma Mr Ajay Gupta Mr Mukesh Kumar Saini Mr Kapil Gupta Mr Aditya Mathur Mr Vijendra Kumar Yadav Mr Dheeraj Tripathi Mr Kuldeep Aswal Mr Yogesh Singhal Mr VK Sharma Mr Timan Singh – for petitioners Mr SN Kumawat, Additional Advocate General – for respondents BY THE COURT:

¶809

Reportable

¶810

The bunch of writ petitions involves common

¶811

question of law thus were heard and decided by this common judgment.

¶812

¶813

The respondents issued an advertisement for

¶814

appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I and II). The advertisement was issued at the district level by respective Zila Parishad. The petitioners applied for the above posts and after remaining successful, were given appointment. The respondents have now issued an order dated 30.8.2013 at annexure-6 in CW 15788/2013 which provides for an action of termination of services of those candidates who do not find place in the merit list after revision of result. The revision of the merit list is due to correction in the answer key wherein certain questions were deleted or answers were modified. It was in view of the fact that after declaration of result, a controversy was raised for correctness of the questions and answers. This court issued directions on the respondents to send the matter to the expert committee. The respondents, in compliance of the order, sought opinion of the expert committee and found certain questions and answers to be incorrect. They accordingly revised the merit list. On account of revision of the merit list, it seems, petitioners are not finding place therein thus apprehending termination or have been terminated.

¶815

Initially, writ petitions were filed when only order dated 30.8.2013 was passed. Few writ petitions were filed after

¶816

¶817

passing of the orders of termination. This court passed interim orders in favour of the petitioners in reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajesh Kumar & ors etc versus State of Bihar & ors etc” [(2013) 4 SCC 690].

¶818

Learned counsel for petitioners submit that selection for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I and II) were conducted by the respondents. The merit list was prepared based on the criteria laid down by them which include weightage of marks for Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (for short 'RTET') to the extent of 20%. The RTET was conducted in pursuance of the amendment in the Regulations by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short 'the NCTE'). As per Regulations, one is required to pass TET for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. The minimum qualifying marks therein are 60% for general category candidates and, for reserve category candidates, concession was provided though the matter in that regard is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is in view of the judgment of the Division Bench holding candidate to be ineligible for appointment unless he possesses 60% marks in RTET. Thus, while making appointment, it was made subject to final outcome of pending litigation.

¶819

¶820

After appointment, petitioners are serving in

¶821

respective Zila Parishad, however, due to litigation and order of this court, result has been revised holding either certain questions or their answers to be incorrect. It was after getting report from expert committee. The revised cut off marks ousted the petitioners from merit as they are now having less marks than cut off.

¶822

It is further stated that revision of marks exist in the RTET also. It is in view of the fact that a dispute regarding certain questions and their answers was raised in respect of RTET also. Therein, again, the matter was sent to the expert committee and, on getting the report, result of the RTET was revised, wherein, few candidates, who earlier remained successful have been declared unsuccessful and, at the same time, other candidates who earlier remained unsuccessful are now declared successful. The termination of the petitioners has been effected due to revision of marks of RTET also.

¶823

Learned counsel submit that revision of answer key and marks was without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, more so when it was going to result in their termination.

¶824

¶825

At this stage, learned counsel submit that they are not questioning the expert committee report and correction of the answer key though issue aforesaid has been raised in the writ petitions but they are not pressing the same. The only issue is that revision of the merit should not result in termination of petitioners' services. It is stated that termination at this stage is going to cause ill consequences inasmuch as many petitioners were earlier working elsewhere. They resigned from their posts to join the services. If the termination is now given effect, then it will cause irreparable loss to them. It is apart from the fact that for the post of Teacher Gr III advertised by the respondents in the year 2013, petitioners could not apply being in service thus they are deprived even to apply for fresh selection. On that count also, equity lies in their favour. The respondents can accordingly reduce the number of vacancies so advertised now so as to accommodate the petitioners herein. The termination should not be otherwise given effect to in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶826

To support the arguments, learned counsel for petitioners have relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar & ors (supra). It is submitted that the controversy therein was similar to that involved in these cases. The petitioners are innocent persons. They are not

¶827

¶828

instrumental either to set incorrect answer key or even questions therein. They did not obtain appointment by fraud or malpractice thus looking to all these facts, respondents should be restrained to effect termination of services of the petitioners.

¶829

The other judgment relied upon is in the case of “Sabita Prasad & ors versus State of Bihar & ors” [1992(1) PLJR62]. Therein, a prayer was made to oust those who were earlier appointed as Teachers but after the judgment of the High Court, could not find place in the merit list so as to continue in service. The High Court, though saved their appointment as they were not party to the litigation but then facts remained that even after change of result, the candidates continued in service.

¶830

The next judgment is in the bunch of writ petitions led by “Suresh Kumar & ors versus RPSC & ors”, SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15638/2012, decided on 15.12.2012 by this court. Therein, while deciding the bunch of writ petitions, the appointment of the Teachers were saved even though change of the marks in the subject of General knowledge was allowed. Same is the position herein.

¶831

In the case of “Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC & ors”,

¶832

¶833

SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3600/2012, decided on 30.7.2012, this

¶834

court took the same view where again there was expert committee report which found certain questions/ answers to be incorrect.

¶835

In the case of “P Shiva versus The Union of India (UOI), Represented by the Secretary to Government, Ministry of Railways & ors”[2003(4)KCCRSN 344], Karnataka High Court restrained the respondents to demote the candidate earlier promoted even though they could not secure required marks for passing written test for viva-voce.

¶836

Learned counsel for petitioners lastly referred recent

¶837

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vikas Pratap Singh & ors versus State of Chhatisgarh & ors”, Civil Appeal No.5318-5319 of 2013 and connected matters, decided on 9.7.2013. Therein also, while permitting revision of the result, termination thereupon was not held to be proper and justified. A direction was given for fresh appointment without claim of seniority and other benefits.

¶838

Mr SN Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate

¶839

General, on the other hand, contested the writ petitions and stated that the petitioners' selection was only on provisional basis. It was

¶840

¶841

subject to decision and final outcome of various writ petitions thus petitioners have wrongly taken it to be an appointment on regular basis. The respondents' action is otherwise justified inasmuch as after declaration of the result and appointments, this court passed an order to send certain questions for expert opinion where the dispute was raised about their correctness. The expert opinion was sought and finding certain questions and answers to be incorrect, result was revised. The expert opinion has been questioned by few petitioners but without proper explanation and is not otherwise pressed thus the issue aforesaid is not required to be dealt with. The revision of the result is not only due to expert opinion on certain questions and answers to the question paper for the post of Teacher Gr III but in view of the revision of answer key of the RTET thus there are two sets of candidates. The change of result is going to effect nearly 287 candidates for Teacher Gr III (Level-I) and nearly 2455 candidates for Teacher Gr III (Level-II) thus number of candidates affected by the outcome of the revised result is not 10 or 20 but running in hundred, rather, in thousand.

¶842

Mr Kumawat submits that as per the NCTE Regulations, a candidate is required to obtain minimum qualifying marks in RTET to become eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III. After revision of result of the RTET, few

¶843

¶844

candidates earlier declared successful became unsuccessful. They are not possessing required minimum qualifying marks of the respective category now, though as per decision of the Division Bench of this court in the case of State of Rajasthan & ors versus Vikas Kumar, everybody is required to possess 60% marks in RTET. The issue aforesaid is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The open category candidate having secured less than 60% marks in RTET is not eligible for appointment. For other categories, it should not be less than required for that category. They cannot be continued if become ineligible. Therefore, interference in the termination of such candidates would mean to continue services of the candidates though not eligible for appointment.

¶845

The second set of candidates are those who were earlier placed in the merit but due to revision of the result for the post of Teacher Gr III, they are not finding place in the merit, thus to give room to meritorious candidates, a decision was taken to terminate services of those who are having less marks. The continuance of the petitioners would deprive candidates having more marks and eligible to get appointment. It is due to definite number of posts. The effort of the respondents is to give room to those now placed in the merit list. The petitioners have hardly

¶846

¶847

worked for 11 months or so and their appointment is otherwise on provisional basis thus termination thereupon cannot be said to be illegal.

¶848

In the case of Rajesh Kumar & ors (supra), the facts were quite different. If less meritorious candidates are continued then how meritorious candidates would be adjusted was not a question before the court. In the said case, appellants continued for a long period of 7 years thus decision aforesaid was rendered on its own facts.

¶849

The position of facts is similar in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & ors (supra). Therein, the action of the respondents to re-evaluate the question and preparation of the merit afresh was held to be just and proper. Ousting of 26 appellants was however interfered on the ground of undue hardship and equities. A direction for fresh appointment was given. It is settled law that a direction to enlarge number of posts cannot be given by the court. In view of the above, if continuance of the petitioners is permitted, then number of such candidates being in thousands, it would deprive meritorious candidates to get appointment. The number of posts now advertised cannot be reduced only with a view to adjust the petitioners who are less meritorious affecting the right of those

¶850

¶851

who have applied for the post in pursuance to new advertisement.

¶852

The judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra) was also on different facts. Therein, as an outcome of the judgment of the High Court, a prayer was made to oust ineligible candidates. Therein, ousting of candidates was saved by the High Court itself as they were not party to the litigation thus the case was decided on its own facts.

¶853

Similar directions were given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “VM Sunanda Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh” [1995 Suppl (2) SCC 235. The position of fact is similar in the case of Suresh Kumar versus RPSC and in the case of Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra).

¶854

In the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors [2012 (1) WLC (Raj) 538] the appointments were saved by the High Court on its own facts and more specifically in absence of affected persons before the High Court.

¶855

It is further stated that there is nothing on record to show that petitioners were earlier working elsewhere and joined the services after resignation. The plea raised by the petitioners

¶856

¶857

for their inability to apply for the posts in pursuance to the new recruitment is also incorrect inasmuch as the last date to apply was 4^th September, 2013, whereas, impugned order was passed on 30.8.2013. The petitioners were having an opportunity to apply for the post of Teacher Gr III again, thus petitioners deserve no relief or sympathy in the facts and circumstances of the present case, rather, writ petitions may be dismissed.

¶858

I have considered rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶859

Undisputed facts of these writ petitions are that in pursuance to the selection and declaration of the result, petitioners were appointed on the post of Teacher Gr III (Leavel-I and II) respectively. The dispute regarding certain questions and their answers was raised by few candidates and, as per directions of this court, respondents constituted expert committee for its opinion and based on the expert opinion, result was revised. By virtue of which, petitioners' merit position has been altered and they are not finding place in the revised merit list. It is one part of factual aspects.

¶860

The other part is in regard to the RTET which is to be

¶861

¶862

qualified by each candidate to become eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. It is as per the NCTE Regulations. Before advertising the posts of Teacher Gr III, the State of Rajasthan through the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan conducted RTET. Therein a candidate was required to obtain minimum 60% marks to qualify it. Concession was allowed in favour of reserved category candidates, however, it was subject matter of litigation and is now pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. The dispute regarding certain questions was raised in regard to RTET also. As per the directions of this court, there is revision of marks of RTET. By virtue of which many candidates are not possessing required qualifying marks to become eligible for the post of Teacher Gr III. The challenge to the revision of result based on the expert committee opinion is not pressed by any of the petitioners. By virtue of revision of result of RTET, the merit position for the post of Teacher Gr III is altered inasmuch as 20% weightage is given to the marks obtained in the RTET for determination of merit for the post of Teacher Gr III. In view of above, there are two sets of candidates, thus issue is required to be dealt with separately.

¶863

I am first dealing with the issue in regard to RTET as revision of marks therein make certain candidates to be ineligible

¶864

¶865

for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. As earlier stated, RTET was conducted by the State prior to selection on the post of Teacher Gr III as aforesaid is one of the required qualifications. The candidates who could secure minimum 60% marks were made eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III. Concession to the reserved category candidates is given, however, it is subject to final outcome of the appeal pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. On the revision of the result of RTET, if a candidate became ineligible for the post of Teacher Gr III for want of required marks, then question comes as to whether he/she can be continued in the name of equity or for similar reasons. The issue needs to be determined in the light of the judgment cited by learned counsel for petitioners. The thrust of the arguments is that once a candidate is appointed, revision of result should not result in his discontinuance/ termination. To answer the question aforesaid, it would be relevant to refer circular/ Regulations of the NCTE, which is quoted thus -

¶866

“ Qualifying marks -

¶867

A person who scores 60% or more in the TET exam will be considered as TET pass. School managements (Government, local bodies, government aided and unaided)

¶868

(a) may consider giving concessions to persons

¶869

¶870

belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy;

¶871

(b) should give weightage to the TET scores in the recruitment process; however, qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/ employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.”

¶872

One needs to possess minimum qualifying marks in RTET to become eligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. In view of above, if a candidate is not in possession of the required marks in RTET then he is ineligible for appointment.

¶873

If the facts of present writ petitions are looked into, on issuance of the result of the RTET, petitioners were declared eligible for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III and finding place in the merit, they were given appointment. Now, by virtue of a dispute regarding questions and answers of RTET, revised result has been issued. Many petitioners are not in possession of required qualifying marks in RTET thus became ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. The respondents have assessed the position aforesaid based on their circular where concession/ relaxation has been given to reserve category candidates otherwise as per judgment of the Division Bench in the

¶874

¶875

case of State of Rajasthan versus Vikas Kumar Agrawal, every candidate is required to possess minimum 60% in TET.

¶876

In my opinion, ineligible candidates cannot be continued in service inasmuch as difference is to be made between ineligible candidates and eligible candidates. An ineligible candidate has no right to continue in service. It may be that they became ineligible due to revision of result of RTET. If this court directs to continue them, it would be de hors the instructions/ regulations of the NCTE. In none of the judgments referred by learned counsel for petitioners, a direction has been given by the Apex Court to continue even ineligible candidates. In those cases, a candidate could not be figure in the merit list due to revision of result but it was not a case where one became ineligible due to revision of result. Thus facts of present cases are distinguishable to that extent. In regard to those candidates who are now ineligible for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III as they are not possessing required qualifying marks in RTET, a direction for continuance or restraining the respondents to terminate their services cannot be given. In the background aforesaid, those petitioners who are not possessing qualifying marks in RTET after revision of result, have no right to continue in service. Accordingly, first issue is decided against the

¶877

¶878

petitioners.

¶879

The revision of result of RTET is having another aspect for consideration. The candidates are in possession of required qualifying marks in RTET even after revision of result but it effects their merit position for the post of Teacher Gr III thus their cases have to be separated from those candidates who are not in possession of required qualifying marks in RTET. Their cases have to be considered along with those who are not finding place in the merit list of Teacher Gr III due to revision of marks. The cases would be considered after taking into consideration the revised marks in RTET and test for the post of Teacher Gr III.

¶880

As indicated above, there is a revision of marks of RTET as well selection test for the post of Teacher Gr III affecting their merit position. Total number of such candidates are 287 on the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I) and 2455 candidates on the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-II). The revision of result based on expert opinion is challenged but not pressed as otherwise this court has very limited jurisdiction to interfere in the expert opinion.

¶881

In view of above, the only question for my

¶882

¶883

consideration is as to whether termination can be effected on revision of result either due to deletion of certain questions or correction of answer. The issue aforesaid was considered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar & ors (supra). The correction in the answer script and revaluation was allowed and held to be just and legal. A direction for fresh selection in view of application of improper answer key was not accepted. The revaluation of answer key and the result was held to be a good option to do justice to those who suffered on account of erroneous key. It was held that such evaluation need not necessarily result in ousting of appellants found below cut off marks based on revised list. Paras 17 to 19 are quoted hereunder for ready reference -

¶884

“17. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ Petitioners- Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the Appellants should they be found to fall below the 'cut off' mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the Appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the Appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any

¶885

¶886

sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the Appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these Appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while reevaluation can determine the inter-se position of the writ Petitioners and the Appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line.

¶887

There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the Appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the Appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter-se merit position may be relevant for the Appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who

¶888

¶889

have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list.

¶890

In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that -

¶891

(1) answer scripts of candidates appearing in 'A' series of competition examination held pursuant to advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 shall be got re-evaluated on the basis of a correct key prepared on the basis of the report of Dr. (Prof.) CN Sinha and Prof. KSP Singh and the observations made in the body of this order and a fresh merit list drawn up on that basis.

¶892

(2) Candidates who figure in the merit list but have not been appointed shall be offered appointments in their favour. Such candidates would earn their seniority from the date the Appellants were first appointed in accordance with their merit position but without any back wages or other benefit whatsoever.

¶893

(3) In case writ PetitionersRespondent Nos. 6 to 18 also figure in the merit list after re-evaluation of the answer scripts, their appointments shall relate back to the date when the Appellants were first appointed with continuity of service to them for purpose of seniority but without any back wages or other incidental benefits.

¶894

¶895

(4) Such of the Appellants as do not make the grade after re-evaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall figure at the bottom of the list of selected candidates based on the first selection in terms of advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant to advertisement No. 1906 of 2006.

¶896

(5) Needful shall be done by the Respondents - State and the Staff Selection Commission expeditiously but not later than three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them.”

¶897

The next judgment is in the case of Sabita Prasad & ors (supra). Therein, the panel prepared for appointment was held to be unconstitutional thus a prayer was made not to continue any candidate appointed out of the aforesaid panel. Referring to various judgments, it was found that while passing orders in favour of the petitioners, invariably a protection is given in favour of those who are not party and continued in service. It was a case where after holding the panel to be unconstitutional, government took a decision not to disturb those who have already been appointed and continued in service. The Apex Court held decision of the government to be just and proper as the appointees were not party to the litigation and otherwise the High Court had given a protection to those who were already appointed while holding panel to be unconstitutional.

¶898

¶899

The judgments in the case of Suresh Kumar versus RPSC (supra), Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra) and Naresh Kumar Sharma & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors, 2012(1) WLC (Raj) 538 are similar inasmuch as this court saved those who were not party to the litigation. The dispute regarding appointment to the post of Teacher Gr II for different subjects was not directly involved in the case of Suresh Kumar versus RPSC (supra). Therein, change of result of General knowledge affected selection to the post of Teacher Gr II. This court observed that while revising the result of Teacher Gr II of other subjects, it should not affect the person already appointed. The observation aforesaid was looking to the fact that a challenge to the selection to the post of Teacher Gr II for different subjects was not involved therein and otherwise the candidates appointed were not party to the litigation. The observation therein is not evolving any ratio so as to apply to other case.

¶900

The position of fact is similar in the case of Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra) wherein after finalisation of the result and appointment, the question of correctness of the answers was raised. Therein, interference in the appointments was not made only for the reason that it will unsettle the selection and appointment of the candidates already appointed and were not

¶901

¶902

party to the litigation.

¶903

In view of above and as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra), invariable observations or directions are issued not to touch appointments of those who are not party to the litigation. Para 30 of the judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad is quoted hereunder -

¶904

“30.The non-interference with the appointment of teachers from the panel who stood already appointed cannot in our opinion form the basis of Article 14 argument. The fundamental right of equality implies that persons in like situations, under like circumstances, are entitled to be treated alike. Reasonable classification according to some principle to recognise intelligible inequalities or to avoid or correct inequalities is permissible. It is in this background that we must divert our attention to the charge of violation of Article 14. Indeed, if the action of the State can be shown to be arbitrary, then notwithstanding any classification it would offend Article 14 and be liable to be struck down. Those who had been appointed out of the panel as and when the vacancies arose and had continued in service did acquire some right to so continue and the action of the State Government in protecting their services cannot be said to infringe Article 14, which even though all pervasive, has to be considered in the facts and

¶905

¶906

circumstances of each case. The appointed and the non- appointed teachers formed separate and distinct classes. In saving the appointments of those who stood already appointed and were serving there was no arbitrariness whatsoever on the part of the Respondents. It indeed is no body's case that the decision taken by the State was actuated by any motive or the scrapping of the panel after 2.7.1989, was malafide. Even otherwise; when the State decided to respect the equities which have arisen in favour of the teachers already appointed and serving, no fault can be found with it. Equity reforms and moderates the rigour and hardness of the law and the State acted fairly and bonafide to respect and balance the equities in favour of the appointed candidates. We must, therefore, reject the charge of arbitrariness in view of the peculiar facts of this case more particularly since we have already found that the persons on the panel had not acquired any indefeasible right to appointment merely by being placed on the panel. It also deserves to be noted here that the Appellants had not questioned, as it is, the validity of appointment of the teachers, already appointed, but have on the other hand sought treatment similar to the one of the appointed teachers. The decision to save the appointments of the teachers already appointed, who form a distinct and separate class, is therefore fair and reasonable and does no suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. This view also accords with the judgment in Subash Chander Marwaha's case (supra) and the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra).

¶907

¶908

We must, therefore reject the argument of discrimination between the two classes of teachers, namely, those who stood appointed and the others who were waiting to be appointed and in whose favour no indefeasible right accrued, only by being brought on the panel, to be appointed.”

¶909

The para aforesaid shows that there should be a difference between the appointees and non-appointees thus while deciding a particular writ petition, some safeguard can be given to the appointee, if they are not party to the litigation.

¶910

The judgment in the case of P Shiva (supra) decided by High Court of Karnataka is not in regard to recruitment but for promotion. The view taken therein was that even if one has not secured required marks for acquiring eligibility, he/she should not be affected unless it is by way of fraud or malpractice or irregularities. In my opinion, the judgment aforesaid is having only persuasive value and, with respect, cannot be accepted to be laying down correct law inasmuch as difference has to be made between ineligible and eligible candidates. The continuance of ineligible candidates would mean violation of the rules or a direction de hors the statutory provisions.

¶911

¶912

In the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & ors (supra) the

¶913

issue again came up before the Apex Court. Therein, revision of result was due to revaluation of answer script where 8 questions of Paper-II were found to be incorrect. Due to revaluation, 26 appellants could not find place in the merit, accordingly their appointments were cancelled. Para 16 to 20 and 25 to 28 of the above judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference -

¶914

“16. In respect of the Respondent-Board's propriety in taking the decision of reevaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the Respondent-Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of Experts and is empowered to decide upon re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See: Chairman, J and K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 59 and Sahiti and Ors. v. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599). It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of reevaluation. The Respondent-Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of reevaluation in respect of the eight questions

¶915

¶916

answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro-rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterized as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been reevaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein.

¶917

In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case the decision of re-evaluation by the Respondent-Board was a valid decision which could not be said to have caused any prejudice, whatsoever, either to the Appellants or to the candidates selected in the revised merit list and therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment and order passed by the High Court to the aforesaid extent.

¶918

18.It is brought to our notice that in view of the interim orders passed by the learned Single Judge the Appellants have now completed their training and have been in service for more than three years. Therefore the only question which survives for our consideration and decision is whether after having undergone training and assumed charge at their place of posting the 26 Appellants be ousted from service on the basis of cancellation of their appointment qua the revised merit list.

¶919

Shri Rao would submit that the case of these Appellants requires sympathetic consideration by this Court, since the appointment of Appellants on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination cannot be said to have been affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation on their part. The ouster of 26 Appellants from service after having successfully undergone training and

¶920

¶921

serving the Respondent-State for more than three years now would cause undue hardship to them and ruin their lives and careers. He would further submit that an irretrievable loss in terms of life and livelihood would be caused to eight Appellants amongst them who have now become over aged and have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examinations. He would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors., 2013(3) SCALE 393 wherein this Court has directed the Respondent-State to reevaluate the answer scripts on the basis of correct model answers key and sympathetically considered the case of such candidates who, after having being appointed in terms of erroneous evaluation and having served the State for considerable length of time, would not find place in the fresh merit list drawn after reevaluation and directed the RespondentState against ousting of such candidates and further that they be placed at the bottom of the fresh merit list.

¶922

20.The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or malafide. (See: District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society, Vizianagaram and Anr. v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi (1990) 3 SCC 655, P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath and Ors (1994) 1 SCC 1 and Union of India and Ors. v. M. Bhaskaran 1995 Suppl. (4) SCC 100). It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a

¶923

¶924

post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667).

¶925

Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the Respondent-Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the Appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service.

¶926

In our considered view, the Appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the Respondent-State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the Appellants and their Dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the Appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the Appellants nor cause

¶927

¶928

undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.

¶929

Accordingly, we direct the RespondentState to appoint the Appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation.

¶930

We clarify that their appointment shall for all intents and purpose be fresh appointment which would not entitle the Appellants to any back wages, seniority or any other benefit based on their earlier appointment.”

¶931

The perusal of the paras quoted above reveals that so far as revaluation of the answers and revision of the result is concerned, no illegality exist therein. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further considered the issue as to whether revaluation should oust the candidates earlier appointed.

¶932

The issue aforesaid is required to be viewed from two

¶933

aspects. First is as to whether there can be re-valuation of the answer script so as to ignore incorrect answers or to correct the answers given in the key. It is held permissible by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments and specially the judgments (supra), thus one proposition becomes clear that there can be change in the answer script so as to correct the questions and

¶934

¶935

answers.

¶936

The question further comes as to for whose

¶937

advantage, it needs to be corrected? The obvious answer is that those who had given correct answer of a question but could not obtain marks because of erroneous setting of answer key of a particular question or questions and, at the same time, benefited those who had given incorrect answer, yet secured marks due to the reasons stated above. If incorrect answer key is allowed to remains as it is, it would be to the benefit of those who had given incorrect answer and taken benefit of the default of the respondents in setting erroneous answer key and secured marks over and above meritorious candidates. Thus, it becomes clear that revaluation of answer script is to benefit meritorious candidates.

¶938

The next question and the crucial issue is that if revaluation of answer script ultimately results in revision of merit list to the benefit of meritorious candidates, then can a candidate going out of merit should be allowed to continue in service? If the answer is given in affirmative then it would result in giving benefit to a candidate who had given incorrect answers to certain questions and even after correction of answers and coming out of the merit would still take benefit of default of the respondents.

¶939

¶940

They will continue even though there are candidates with better marks after revised result.

¶941

If the candidates, already appointed, are continued then the question would be as to how the revised merit list would be operated for the meritorious candidates. It is settled law that the size of the posts for recruitment is to be determined by the administration and if, that is so, then giving direction for appointment of meritorious candidates out of the revised merit list would mean a direction to give appointment in excess to the posts advertised. If a direction to give appointment in excess to the posts advertised cannot be given then meritorious candidates would be deprived from appointment. In that case, what would be the purpose of revaluation of the answer script or the questions?

¶942

If a view is taken to direct the respondents to adjust those who have already been appointed against future vacancies, then equity in favour of such candidates would be at the cost of meritorious candidates of next recruitment thus, under all circumstances, a direction to continue less meritorious candidates would be proper or not, needs to be considered. The reference of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Hoshiar Singh versus State of Haryana & ors” [AIR 1993 SC

¶943

¶944

2606] would be relevant and para 10 thereof is quoted

¶945

hereasunder-

¶946

“10. The learned counsel for these appellants have not been able to show that after the revised requisition dated January 24, 1991 whereby the Board was requested to send its recommendation for 8 posts, any further requisition was sent by the Director General of Police for a larger number of posts. Since the requisition was for eight posts of Inspector of Police, the Board was required to send its recommendations for eight posts only. The Board, on its own, could not recommend names of 19 persons for appointment even though the requisition was for eight posts only because the selection and recommendation of larger number of persons than the posts for which requisition is sent. The appointment on the additional posts on the basis of such selection and recommendation would deprive candidates who were not eligible for appointment to the posts on the last date for submission of applications mentioned on the advertisement and who became eligible for appointment thereafter, of the opportunity of being considered for appointment on the additional posts because if the said additional posts are advertised subsequently those who become eligible for appointment would be entitled to apply for the same. The High Court was, therefore, right in holding that the selection of 19 persons by the Board even though the requisition was for 8 posts only, was not legally sustainable.”

¶947

There may be cases where no vacancy exist after appointment. Though, at times, the court passes order saving appointment already given, but, invariably, it is in such cases

¶948

¶949

where appointees are not before the court or there are such similar exceptional circumstances. The direction therein are not propounding a ratio as has been given by the counsel for the petitioners while referring the judgment in the case of Ramesh Chand and Naresh Kumar Sharma (supra). The aforesaid would be considered separately, but, presently, I am reiterating a portion of the judgment in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Rajesh Kumar (supra), heavily relied by learned counsel for petitioners. Firstly, a part of the judgment in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh, para 20 -

¶950

“...It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates. However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bonafide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (See: Vinodan T. and Ors. v. University of Calicut and Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 726; State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi and Ors. (2006) 1 SCC 667)....

¶951

26.........However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the Appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the

¶952

¶953

candidates selected qua the revised merit list.”

¶954

A perusal of the para quoted above reveals that a person appointed erroneously must not reap benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardizing interest of meritorious and worthy candidates. Second part, however, save petitioners' appointment due to discovery of error or irregularity but it is by taking a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including length of their service.

¶955

The Apex Court, thereupon, took notice of further fact that continuance of services of the appointees should neither give unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua revised merit list. If the aforesaid is taken into consideration on the facts of these cases, answer would be in negative because the whole purpose of the revision of the merit list would be vitiated and cause serious prejudice to the candidates who find place in the merit list after revision of result if they cannot be given appointment. Thus, while referring to the judgment in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra), this court cannot ignore the reason taken therein for continuance of candidates. It was purely on sympathetic consideration and taking note of their length of service apart from bona fides.

¶956

¶957

The position of fact is similar in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra). Therein, Hon'ble Apex Court took notice that the candidates already appointed were not guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice. They had otherwise served the State efficiently for nearly 7 years and even become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. The portions of para 17 and 18 of the said judgment is again quoted hereunder for ready reference -

¶958

That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ Petitioners- Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the Appellants should they be found to fall below the 'cut off' mark in the merit list...

¶959

......Secondly, he contended that the Appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their

¶960

¶961

employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives.

¶962

........In the circumstances, while interse merit position may be relevant for the Appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list.”

¶963

The perusal of portions of the paras quoted above shows that revaluation is a good option to do justice to those who have suffered on account of erroneous key so as to place them in the merit list. It may not necessarily oust the candidates already appointed in a given circumstance. The aforesaid formula cannot be applied in general but only in given case which may be if a candidate has continued in service for long.

¶964

In the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), two reasons were given to continue the candidates ousted from the merit. First

¶965

¶966

was that they were not guilty of fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice etc and second was that they had served for 7 years and lost further opportunity of service.

¶967

In reference of the judgment above, it become clear that revision of result may not necessarily oust the candidates already appointed, if they are going out of merit list but aforesaid cannot be a rigid formula in view of the ratio propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case supra itself. It all depends on the facts of each case.

¶968

If the facts of the instant case are taken note of, appointment of the petitioners was only on provisional basis and subject to outcome of various litigations thus it was made clear that the appointments would not give indefinite right in favour of the candidates appointed. The relevant portion of one of the appointment order is quoted hereunder for ready reference -

¶969

"नविनयुि� �ाथिमक और उ� �ाथिमक िवघालय अध्यापक� (कक्षा 6 से 8 के िलये के) को राजस्थान िसिवल सेवा (पुनरीिक्षत वेतनमान) िनयम 2008 के िनयम 21 अनुसूची पट के अनुसार परीवीक्षा काल म� िनयत पािर�िमक रुपये 8950/- देय होगा। एवं इसके अितिर� अन्य कोई भ�े यथा मकान िकराया भ�ा, मंहगाई भ�ा, शहरी क्षितपूित भ�ा, िवशेष वेतन आिद देय नह� ह�गे। पिरवीक्षा �िशक्षण अविध म� अन्य सुिवधा� एवं अवकाश आिद राजस्थान पंचायती

¶970

¶971

राज िनयम एवं राजस्थान सेवा िनयम� म� िनिहत संशोिधत �ावधान� के अनुसार देय ह�गे। दो वषर् के पिरवीक्षा �िशक्षण अविध के संतोषजनक पूणर् होने के उपरान्त ही पद का वेतन �ंखला का िनयमानुसवार वेतनमान 5200-20200 �ेड पे रुपये 2800/- देय होगा। जो अभ्यथ� पूवर् से िनयिमत राजकीय सेवा म� काय र ्त है, उनके संदभर् म� िव� िवभाग की अिधसूचना �मांक प 1(2) एफडी/रुल्स/06 िदनांक 13.03.2006 के अनुसार वेतन भ�े देय ह�गे। इन अभ्यिथय� की जन्म तारीख� वे ही है, जो इन्होन� परीक्षा के अपने प�� म� उल्लेिखत की है और िजन्ह� िजला स्थापना सिमित िजला पिरषद �ारा स�यक सत्यापन के प�ात स्वीकार िकया गया है। �ाथिमक और उ� �ाथिमक िवघालय अध्यापक ि�तीय स्तर कक्षा 6 से 8 के िलये यह िनयुि� माननीय राजस्थान उ� न्यायालय जयपुर ख�डपीठ �ारा डी.बी.स्पेशल अपील सं.2664/2011 उनवानी राजस्थान सरकार बनाम दुगार्दास व अन्य म� राजस्थान अध्यापक पा�ता परीक्षा के संबंध म� िदये गये िनणर्य िदनांक 06.01.2012 के अध्यधीन रहेगी। �ाथिमक और उ� �ाथिमक िवघालय �ारा एस.बी.िसिवल िरट यािचका सं. 9170/2012, 9169/2012, 9176/2012, 9177/2012, 9184/2012, 9222/2012, 9253/2012, 9262/2012, 9271/2012, 9319/2012, 9328/2012, 8121/2012 व अन्य समान यािचका� के अंितम िनणर्य के अध्यधीन रहेगी। सभी िनयुि�यां �ोिवजनल होगी एवं िनयुि� �ा� अभ्यथ� के पक्ष म� कोई अिध�ायी अिधकार उत्प� नह� करेगी।"

¶972

The part quoted above reveals that the petitioners

¶973

were given only provisional appointment on probation and it was made clear that such appointment would not cause any indefinite right to continue. It may be due to litigation pending on different issues. The fact further remains that appointments were made only on provisional basis which was not in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Vikas Pratap Singh (supra). In the case in hand, the petitioners

¶974

¶975

have worked hardly for 11 months or so thus duration of their service is not so large so as to create equity in their favour. It is, however, shown that some candidates left the service to seek appointment on the post of Teacher Gr III though number of such petitioners are quite limited because in most of the writ petitions, documents in this regard do not exist. In any case, this court will give appropriate directions to settle equities in their favour.

¶976

The further issue raised by learned counsel for petitioners is regarding deprivation of the petitioners to apply for the same posts in the next selection as the last date of which was 4.9.2013. The issue aforesaid also needs consideration thus proper directions would be given in the operative portion of the judgment so that action of the State Government may not affect those candidates in the future selection even if they have become overage and if failed to apply for that.

¶977

In the instant case, number of candidates going out of merit is large as it is running in hundreds and thousands. It was noticed during the course of arguments that around 2455 candidates have gone out of merit for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-II) and 187 candidates have gone out of merit for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I). If such number of candidates are

¶978

¶979

continued and, at the same time, a direction for appointment of equivalent number of candidates coming in the merit is given, it may virtually or to some extent, nullify the next recruitment as appointment of meritorious candidates has to be adjusted somewhere against those vacancies only. It may be true that default in setting out the questions or answers is not due to malpractice, misrepresentation or fraud of the petitioners but then this court should not ignore the fact that effect of continuance of large number of candidates would nullify the very purpose of revaluation itself which otherwise is held to be proper method to correct the irregularities. If, in all circumstances, a candidate going out of merit is continued in service, it would be adjustment of less meritorious candidates at the cost of those who may exist in between new cut off marks and the marks of the petitioners.

¶980

Now comes the issue in reference to the judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra). It is earlier clarified that writ petition therein was filed to oust those who were not entitled to continue on the post. It is in the light of a decision of the government to continue such candidates. The Hon'ble Apex Court therein held that if the State has taken a decision to continue such candidates, it will not violate Article 14 of the Constitution of

¶981

¶982

India. The difference between the appointees and non-appointees is to be made. The facts situation in the instant case is different because it is the government which has taken a decision to discontinue those candidates who are not coming in the revised merit list. Therein, the court was cautious enough to hold that those who had been appointed out of the panel when vacancy arose and had continued in service, acquire some right to continue and the action of the State Government in continuing their services cannot be said to be infringe Article 14 of the Constitution which even though of persuasive value, has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each cases. The aforesaid observation has been made in para 30 thus there exist room for this court to decide the issue of continuance and non-continuance of the candidates in the facts and circumstances of each case. Portion of para 30 of the judgment in the case of Sabita Prasad (supra) is quoted again for ready reference -

¶983

¶984

¶985

inequalities is permissible. It is in this background that we must divert our attention to the charge of violation of Article 14. Indeed, if the action of the State can be shown to be arbitrary, then notwithstanding any classification it would offend Article 14 and be liable to be struck down. Those who had been appointed out of the panel as and when the vacancies arose and had continued in service did acquire some right to so continue and the action of the State Government in protecting their services cannot be said to infringe Article 14, which even though all pervasive, has to be considered in the facts and circumstances of each case. The appointed and the non- appointed teachers formed separate and distinct classes. In saving the appointments of those who stood already appointed and were serving there was no arbitrariness whatsoever on the part of the Respondents. It indeed is no body's case that the decision taken by the State was actuated by any motive or the scrapping of the panel after 2.7.1989, was malafide. Even otherwise; when the State decided to respect the equities which have arisen in favour of the teachers already appointed and serving, no fault can be found with it. Equity reforms and moderates the rigour and hardness of the law and the State acted fairly and bonafide to respect and balance the equities in favour of the appointed candidates. We must, therefore, reject the charge of arbitrariness in view of the peculiar facts of this case more particularly since we have already found that the persons on the panel had not acquired any indefeasible right to

¶986

¶987

appointment merely by being placed on the panel. It also deserves to be noted here that the Appellants had not questioned, as it is, the validity of appointment of the teachers, already appointed, but have on the other hand sought treatment similar to the one of the appointed teachers. The decision to save the appointments of the teachers already appointed, who form a distinct and separate class, is therefore fair and reasonable and does no suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. This view also accords with the judgment in Subash Chander Marwaha's case (supra) and the law laid down by the Constitution Bench in Shankarsan Dash's case (supra). We must, therefore reject the argument of discrimination between the two classes of teachers, namely, those who stood appointed and the others who were waiting to be appointed and in whose favour no indefeasible right accrued, only by being brought on the panel, to be appointed.”

¶988

The government may take a decision to continue services of those who have already been appointed but then it should not be generally at the cost of meritorious candidates. It would otherwise become a case of misplaced sympathy in favour of the appointees and prejudicial to the cause of meritorious candidates which has not been accepted by the Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra).

¶989

¶990

Learned counsel for petitioners have even referred to

¶991

the judgment of this court where appointments of the candidates were saved. The first judgment is in the case of Suresh Kumar & ors (supra). It was a case where correctness of certain questions for the post of Teacher Gr II (Social Science and Mathematics) was questioned apart from General Knowledge. This court noticed that there was a change in the answers in General Knowledge also and it was common for appointment on the post of Teacher Gr II in different subjects. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission agreed to change the result of the post of Teacher Gr II of Social Science and Mathematics. The issue in respect of Teacher Gr II of other subject was not before the court thus, cautiously, a direction was given not to disturb the appointees, otherwise direction aforesaid would have been without hearing the appointees of other subjects apart from the fact that the issue was limited therein for Teacher Gr II in the subject of Social Science and Mathematics. Therein, the direction was given to settle the equities in favour of the meritorious candidates. The issue therein was on different facts and otherwise it is not propounding a ratio but gives a direction in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶992

In the instant case, the issue has been discussed and decided elaborately in reference of the judgment of the Apex

¶993

¶994

Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Vikas Pratap Singh.

¶995

The position of fact in the case of Ramesh Chand versus RSRTC (supra) is again similar. Therein, certain questions were found to be incorrect after appointment of the candidates, however, a direction to amend select list was not given as it was unsettling the selection and appointment without hearing the candidates who have already been appointed thus, on facts, a direction was given not to unsettle the result as the appointees are not heard being not party to the litigation.

¶996

In the case of Naresh Kumar Sharma & ors (supra), the appointments were continued for three years thus a direction for their continuance was given. The direction aforesaid has been taken to be ratio propounded by this court. It is in ignorance to the fact that discussion on the issue does not exist therein thus it remains only a direction.

¶997

In view of the discussion made above, I find that the impugned order dated 30.8.2013 issued by the Principal Secretary & Commissioner, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj (Panchayati Raj & Elementary Education), Government of Rajasthan or the termination orders, if any, in consequence

¶998

¶999

thereof do not suffer from any illegality. It is in the light of the fact that each issue raised by learned counsel for petitioners have been considered by this court thus sending the matter for postdecisional hearing to observe principles of natural justice would be an empty formality. I do not find any illegality in the action of the respondents and justification of continuance of services of the petitioners, however, some equities exist in favour of the petitioners thus all the writ petitions are disposed of with following directions -

¶1000

1-This court is not inclined to cause interference in the impugned order dated 30.8.2013 so as the orders of termination.

¶1001

2-The petitioners were appointed and continued in service for nearly 11 months before passing of the impugned order. The appointment and continuance was not to their default, however, this court cannot ignore revision of merit list and consequence thereof. Thus, detailed judgment has been rendered. To balance the equities, a direction is given to the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear in the next selection without debarring them on the ground of age. If new vacancies have arisen then they would be expected to arrange for the next selection within a period of six months so that petitioners may also compete therein and, if

¶1002

¶1003

find place in the merit, are given appointment. This direction would, however, not apply to those candidates who have not secured requisite marks in the RTET.

¶1004

3-The termination of the petitioners may however be effected after considering revised marks in RTET inasmuch as result of RTET has also been revised thus if a candidate has gained marks therein and comes in merit, then not to be terminated.

¶1005

4-The petitioners, who were earlier serving in the State Government and have resigned to join the post of Teacher Gr III would be continued in the past services if it was with the State Government or its undertaking. For that, The Chief Secretary of the State would pass separate order.

¶1006

5-The respondents would, however, pay due salary to the petitioners for the period they have worked under their orders or under the interim orders of the court.

¶1007

6-The petitioners would be at liberty to seek any clarification, if needed, on the judgment of the pending SLPs in the case of “Vikas Sankhla & ors etc versus versus Vikas Kumar Agrawal & ors etc”, SLP (Civil) No.23178-23182/2013 and other connected matters.

¶1008

¶1009

7-Before parting with the judgment it would be necessary to direct that respondents not to make appointments in future to any post unless they first call for the objections to the questions and answers and finalise it followed by publication of select list. This is to avoid type of litigation brought herein.

¶1010

(MN Bhandari), J.

¶1011

bnsharma

¶1012

All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.

¶1013

(BN Sharma) PS-cum-JW

Hemraj Merota and Ors. v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemraj Merota and Ors. v. State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Than Singh Vs State Home Departmentors

Gopal Ram Vs R P S C, Ajmer

Ramesh Kumar Tailor Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Priti Gurjar and Ors. Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Kavita Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Anr.

Mahendra Kumar Kumawat Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.