Common order dismissing three writ petitions wherein petitioners, having secured equal marks to last appointed candidates, sought appointment against subsequent vacancies created by ineligible candidates.
Dismissal of all three writ petitions with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.419/2007
Ved Prakash & Ors. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1661/2008
Shiv Raj Singh Rajput & Anr. Vs. The State of Raj. & Ors.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12333/2006
Harchand Ram Meghwal Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.
Date of Order :: 22.01.2015
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, for the petitioners. Mr. S.N. Kumawat)
Mr. Shantanu Kumawat) for the respondent-Commission. Mr. Gaurav Tanwar on behalf of Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, for the State-respondents.
The batch of three writ applications raise common question of facts and law, and therefore, have been taken up together for adjudication by this common judgment and order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.
2
'Commission', for short), issued advertisement dated 2nd June, 2004, inviting application from eligible candidates for appointment to 25,712 posts of Primary Teacher Grade-III under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996', for short). It is pleaded case of the petitioners that in the result declared by the Commission on 5th January, 2005, they were declared successful, but owing to the fact that the petitioners along with others, secured equal marks, the criteria adopted by the respondent-Commission providing for priority/preference to the candidates who were elder more in age, with higher educational qualifications and with higher percentage in Senior Secondary and graduation course; the petitioners have been deprived of appointment inspite of having secured equal marks to the last candidate, selected and accorded appointment. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the vacancies, which became available on account of candidates, though in higher merit but were subsequently declared as ineligible, ought to have been made available and filled up by the candidates like petitioners, who had secured equal marks but could not be appointed owing to the criteria of elder in age, higher educational qualifications and higher percentage in Senior Secondary and graduation course, adopted and applied by the respondent-Commission.
3
4
the petitioners have placed reliance on the opinion of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in SBCWP No.4743/2006 (Kaushal Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.), decided on 29th July, 2008, at Principal seat at Jodhpur, which were unsuccessfully subjected to intra-court in D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.1257/2011 (Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Kaushal Kumar Gupta & Anr.) dismissed on 4th November, 2011; 2009 WLC (Raj.) (1) 412.
5
candidates, with equal numbers, who were much older than the petitioners, were available and have been accorded appointment.
| Name | DOB Ca |
tegory |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Ved Prakash S/o Shri Rohitashwa, | 10.7.1979, | OBC |
| 2.Govind Dadhich S/o Shri Mohan Lal | ||
| Dadhich, | 4.5.1974, | Gen. |
| 3.Sher Singh Bhati S/o shri Kishore | ||
| Singh, | 1.7.1974, | Gen. |
6
have specifically pleaded that the recruitment process in the instant writ applications is with reference to the examination of 2004, for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III: Subsequently, examination for appointment to the post of Teacher Grade-III, have been conducted in the year 2006 and 2008 as well. Further, the recruitment process was concluded in the year 2005 itself. The result was declared on 5th January, 2005 and the seniority list was drawn and declared on 11th February, 2005. The list of successful candidates, with recommendation for appointment, was forwarded to the State Government on 2nd March, 2005. It is further categorically stated in the counter affidavit that there is no post vacant available for appointment, and therefore, the claim of the petitioners deserves to be to be declined on that count as well.
7
were found to be ineligible, subsequent to the declaration of result, were filled up by a candidate lower in merit to the petitioners.
8
younger to any of the petitioners as is reflected from the pleadings of the writ applications. Moreover, subsequent to the recruitment involved herein, for the post of Teacher Grade-III, recruitment processes have been conducted and concluded in the year 2006, 2008 and 2012.
there shall be no order as to costs.
(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J.
Pcg
All corrections made in judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed. P.C.Gupta, Sr.P.A.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners having secured equal marks are entitled to appointment due to subsequent vacancies created by ineligible candidates being declared ineligible solely based on age criteria?
Whether the criteria of preferring elder candidates in case of equal marks warrants the appointment of younger petitioners when subsequent vacancies arise from ineligible candidates?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kaushal Kumar Gupta Vs. State of Raj. & Anr.Referred¶26
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4743/2006
Rajasthan Public Service Commission Vs. Kaushal Kumar Gupta & Anr.Referred¶26
D.B.Civil Special Appeal No.1257/2011
2009 WLC (Raj.) (1) 412Referred¶26
Ved Prakash & Ors.
Shiv Raj Singh Rajput & Anr.
Harchand Ram Meghwal
The State of Raj.
Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Veerendr Singh Siradhana
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
