Dismissed

Sharwan Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Feb 2015CW/583/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition challenging the re-conducting of an examination for Group-D Military Engineering Services posts. It held that petitioners had no indefeasible rights as results were not declared and the reconducting did not prejudice them or invite fresh applicants.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition and application were dismissed; the interim order was discharged.

Sharwan Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2015)

¶1

¶2

D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.583/2014

¶3

Shrawan Singh & Anr. Vs.

¶4

Union of India & Ors.

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

¶6

Mr. Kailash Jangid, for the petitioners Mr.AK Rajvanshy, Asstt. Solicitor General a/w Mr.DP Dhaka, for the respondents.

¶7

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶8

All the petitioners had appeared in the selections for the post of Group-D employees in Military Engineering Services on all India basis vide advertisement dated 30.12.2011. After publishing preliminary results, a notice was published for re-conducting the examination amongst the same applicants who had applied in pursuance to the advertisement dated 30.12.2011.

¶9

The Tribunal has found that the issuance of the second advertisement, by itself, was sufficient, to assume that the earlier selection process was cancelled. It was not necessary nor there was any need to specifically cancel the earlier selections, when it was not concluded, and that the selections were reconducted from amongst the same candidates. In paras 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the judgment dated 24.10.2013, the Tribunal has observed as follows :-

¶10

“19. We have also perused the enquiry report and the original complaint received regarding

¶11

¶12

favoritism in the first examination. It is settled principle of law that where the competent authority verified the facts from record of any inquiry howsoever summary the same may be, it is possible for the competent authority to take a decision that there are good reasons for making the order which the authority eventually makes. Accordingly, the reasons mentioned in the enquiry report by the competent authority to re-conduct the examination cannot be said to be improper or illegal.

¶13

20. So far as contention regarding reservation point is concerned, it is well settled principle of law that after finalization of the recruitment process, reservation policy shall be complied with, therefore, at this stage, merely after declaration of result of the written examination, it cannot be said that reservation policy has not been complied with.

¶14

21. So far as failure of applicants in the examination and passing of some of other candidates as evidence of unfairness is concerned, in the absence of any specific allegation or specific malice on the part of any officer the same cannot be accepted as proof and, therefore, the contention raised by the applicants can not sustain in the eyes of law.

¶15

22. In totality of the above discussions, in our considered view, all the OA's lack merit and the same are accordingly dismissed.”

¶16

¶17

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the respondents have not come out clearly as to what were the reasons for reconducting examination.

¶18

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there was breach of Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) in the examination and that they had produced an enquiry report before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons for reconducting the examinations.

¶19

We are informed that the lapses, which may have happened in not following the Standard Operating Procedures in the selections, are still subject matter of enquiry. We do not find that the petitioners have any right, as the final select list was not declared in pursuance to the earlier selections. The reconducting of examination have not prejudice them, as all the petitioners have been allowed to participate without inviting applications from any fresh persons.

¶20

We further do not find any allegations of malafide against any particular officer nor any such officer was impleaded in the O.A. before the Tribunal nor in this writ petition to establish any malice in the selections. The petitioner did not acquire any indefeasible rights in the earlier selections of which the results were not declared.

¶21

¶22

There is no error in the judgment of the Tribunal. The writ petition is consequently dismissed.

¶23

The interim order stand discharged. The application is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

[JAISHREE THAKUR], J. [GOVIND MATHUR], J.

¶25

Sanjay

Sharwan Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharwan Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Raj. and Ors. Vs Jitendra Singh and Anr.

State of Rajasthan and Others Vs Krishan Chand Sharma

Mool Singh Vs State

Gajesingh and Ors. Vs Ashok Jain and Ors.

Mohammed Khalil and Ors. Vs Dist. Collector Chhittorgarh and Ors.

Banshi Lal Vs State and Anr.