Dismissed

Shiv Charan Lal Meena v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC4 Apr 2014CW/208/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking appointment as a Hindi Lecturer. The petitioner's name was on a reserve list that lapsed due to lack of requisition from the government. The Court held that Rules 16 and 20 did not mandate annual recruitment or operation of the reserve list when the main list had vacancies, dismissing the petition for lack of merit.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Shiv Charan Lal Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

I N THE HI GH COURT OF JUDI CATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAI PUR BENCH, JAI PUR

¶3

ORDER

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.208 of 2003

¶5

Shiv Charan Lal Meena Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶6

Date of Order : : 4^th April, 2014

¶7

HON ' BLE MR. JUSTI CE VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA

¶8

Mr. Darshan Shree on behalf of Mr. Bhanwar Bagri for petitioner. None present for respondents.

¶9

< > < > < >

¶10

BY THE COURT :

¶11

The petitioner after having participated in the selection process, for appointment to the post of Hindi Lecturer, in response to advertisement issued in May, 2001; has approached this Court praying for the following relief(s): -

¶12

“i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to produce the complete record pertaining to the present case before this Hon'ble Court.

¶13

ii) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Hindi Lecturer as per his placement in the Reserved List published by RPSC against 97 posts notified them with a further directions to appoint the petitioner on the post of Hindi Lecturer, if he found suitable, with all consequential benefits.

¶14

iii) Any other appropriate relief which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper be passed in favour of petitioner.

¶15

¶16

iv) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of petitioner.”

¶17

Shorn off unnecessary details, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy raised are: that the petitioner's name found place at serial number 25 in the combined waiting list, and at serial number 3 in the waiting list, prepared separately for Scheduled Tribe Category Candidates. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that out of 50 posts advertised in the month of May, 2001; 20 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe Category, 20 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste Category and 10 posts for Other Backward Classes Category. The petitioner has further stated that only 25 successful candidates from the main list, consisting of 50 posts advertised for appointment to the post of Hindi Lecturer, were accorded appointment. According to the petitioner, yet another notification was published in the month of December, 2002, inviting applications from the eligible candidates/ retired lecturers, for appointment on vacant posts of Lecturers, in various subjects, wherein remuneration was fixed on period basis i.e. Rs.75/ - (Rupees : Seventy Five) per period, subject to outer limit of Rs.4,500/ - (Rupees : Four Thousand and Five Hundred) per month. The petitioner has further raised grievance for not filling up the 97 vacancies of Hindi Lecturers, which have been lying vacant. Moreover, had the respondents conducted recruitment on regular basis, the petitioner might have secured appointment to the post of Hindi Lecturer long ago.

¶18

In response to the notice of the writ application, the staterespondents and the Rajasthan Public Service Commission

¶19

¶20

(hereinafter referred to as 'Commission', for short), submitted their counter-affidavits admitting the fact of selection process initiated vide advertisement No.1/ 2001-02 dated 31^st May, 2001. The name of the petitioner found place at serial number 25 in the reserve list. However, since the respondent-Commission did not receive any requisition from the state-respondents, for recommending names of the candidates from the reserve list, upto the validity period of reserve list i.e. 27^th February, 2003, the reserve list was not operated and lapsed in due course of time.

¶21

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 5. From the facts and materials available on record, it is not disputed that the name of the petitioner was included in the reserve list. The Rajasthan Educational Service (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1986', for short), framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, regulates the recruitment to the posts as well as the conditions of service of the candidates appointed to the post of Hindi Lecturer.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any rule, that postulated holding of selection of direct recruits every year to all the vacancies. Unless there is a statutory rule requiring to conduct the selection of direct recruits every year, the argument raised is devoid of any substance. 7. Part IV of the Rules of 1986 deals with procedure for direct recruitment to the posts. Rule 16 of the Rules of 1986 reads thus: -

¶23

“16. I nvit in g of Applicat ion s : - Applications for direct recruitment to posts in the service shall be invited by

¶24

¶25

the Commission by advertising the vacancies to be filled in the official Gazette or in such other manner as may be deemed fit.

¶26

Provided that while selecting candidates for the vacancies so advertised, the Commission may if intimation of additional requirement not exceeding 50% of the advertised vacancies is received by them before selection, also select suitable persons to meet such additional requirement.”

¶27

Rule 20 of the Rules of 1986 provides for preparation of reserve list of candidates, who were found suitable for appointment to the posts concerned. Rule 20 reads thus: -

¶28

“20. Recom m en dat ion of t he Com m ission – The Commission shall prepare a list of candidates, whom they consider suitable for appointment to the posts concerned, arranged in order of merit and then the Commission shall forward the list to the Government.

¶29

Provided that the Commission may also to the extent 100% of the vacancies finally intimated before the selection keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The Commission may on requisition, recommend the name of such candidates in order of merit to the Government within twelve months from the date of which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government.”

¶30

However, the reserve list, wherein the name of the petitioner found place at serial number 25, had a limited life, from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government. The purpose of the reserve list is to meet out the additional requirement not exceeding 50% of the advertised vacancies, if the intimation of additional requirement is received

¶31

¶32

before the selection. Be that as it may, the Commission would recommend the names of the candidates from the reserve list only on the receipt of a requisition from the Government. In the instant case at hand, it is not disputed that the Government did not send any requisition and therefore, the Commission did not operate the reserve list; and the period of life of the reserve list expired on 27^th February, 2003.

¶33

The state-respondents in their counter-affidavit have specifically pleaded that the subsequent notification issued in the month of December, 2002 inviting applications from the eligible candidates/ retired lecturers, for appointment on contract basis on payment of remuneration on the basis of Rs.75/ - (Rupees : Seventy Five) per period, subject to outer limit of Rs.4,500/ - (Rupees : Four Thousand and Five Hundred) per month, was made subject matter of the litigation before this Court. The process was not proceeded further in view of the stay order(s) granted by this Court in those writ proceedings, preferred challenged appointment on contract basis. This factual matrix is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶34

In view of the admitted facts and keeping in view the mandate of Rule 16, it is evident that the respondent-Commission cannot be called upon to forward the list of additional requirement, once the selection for the advertised vacancies is complete. In the present case at hand, as pleaded and admitted by the petitioner, the selection list of 50 successful candidates was operated to the extent of only 25 successful candidates, from the main list. Thus, if

¶35

¶36

at all the remaining 25 successful candidates of the main list had much better case than that of the petitioner.

¶37

According to the mandate of Rule 20, the respondentCommission is required to prepare a list of candidates, who are found suitable for appointment to the post concerned, arranged in the order of merit and forward the same to the Government. It is open to the respondent-Commission to prepare a reserve list, of suitable candidates, to the extent of 100% of the vacancies finally intimated before the selection. The respondent-Commission may on requisition, recommend the name of such candidates in order of merit to the Government within 12 months from the date of the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the Government. A bare perusal of Rule 20 would reveal that the purpose of Rule 20 is to recommend the name of candidates, from reserve list, for the purpose of unfilled advertised vacancies, if the requisition is received within 12 months. Rule 20 does not operate in case of requisition for additional post. Admittedly, in the instant case at hand, even the main list was not exhausted, therefore, there was no occasion for operating the reserve list. Thus, there is no violation of any of the statutory rules and the action of the respondentCommission cannot be legally flawed.

¶38

For the reasons and discussions herein above, the action of the respondents, in not operating reserve list wherein the name of the petitioner was at serial number 25, cannot be faulted. 14. The writ petition is devoid of any substance and lacks in merit and therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

¶40

15. Ordered accordingly.

¶41

However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶42

( VEERENDR SI NGH SI RADHANA) , J.

¶43

Su n il/ P.A.

¶44

All cor r ect ion s m ad e in t h e j u d g m en t / or d er h av e been in cor por at ed in t h e j u dgm en t / or der bein g em ailed.

¶45

( Su n il Solan k i) P.A.

Shiv Charan Lal Meena v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Charan Lal Meena v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt.Meena Kumari Vs State of Rajasthan

Shamim Khan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shuchi Jain Vs R R v P N L and Anr.

Ratna Ram Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ram Prakash Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr R S Tomar Vs State of Raj and Anr.