Dismissed

Smt Raj Rani Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC16 May 2016CW/6321/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by a Para Teacher candidate granted selection under a closed recruitment scheme. High Court dismissed the petition, holding the selection process ended with the scheme without available posts or vacancy notifications. Court cited precedents confirming no indefeasible right to appointment exists absent bonafide arbitrary denials.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; no appointment was directed.

Smt Raj Rani Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.6321/ 2008 Smt. Raj Rani Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶4

Date of Order : 16.05.2016

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

¶6

Mr. Anand Sharma, counsel for petitioner. Mr. Parikshit Singh, for respondents.

¶7

The petitioner had applied for the post of Para Teacher

¶8

(Physical Education) in the year 2002.

¶9

It is stated that a panel of four persons had been prepared for appointment on the post of Para Teacher (Physical Education) on 20.05.2002. The petitioner being the only female candidate in the panel was selected for the post of Para Teacher (Physical Education) in Government Girls Upper Primary School, Lotwada. However, another candidate objected to the appointment of the petitioner and the District Collector, Dausa referred the matter to the Block Level Grievance Committee, Bandikui. It is stated that the grievance Committee could not take a fresh decision in the matter as the Principal Bench of this court at Jodhpur in the case of Dhuleshwar Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1879/ 2002) had stayed appointments on the post of Para Teacher.

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as the petitioner was the only female candidate in the panel prepared after selection, she should have been appointed on the post of Para

¶11

¶12

Teacher in the Government Girls Upper Primary School, Lotwada .

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the Rajiv Gandhi Swarn Jayanti Pathshala scheme, under which appointments to the post of Para Teachers were being made had already come to an end, the appointment of the petitioner could not be made. He further contended that no post of Para Teacher is available with the respondent against which the petitioner could be appointed.

¶14

Indisputably, the Rajiv Gandhi scheme, under which the petitioner was seeking appointment, has come to an end. There is no post which is available to the respondents against which the petitioner could be appointed. This court in the case of Dhuleshwar Yadav Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr (supra) has already stayed the appointment to the post of Para Teacher. There is no doubt that the petitioner had been selected for appointment. However, it is well settled that a candidate, who is in the select list, has no right to appointment provided the appointing authority acts in a bonafide manner. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents acted in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner or any person junior to the petitioner has been appointed on the post of Para Teacher. I draw support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sh an k ar san Dash v . Un ion of I n dia r epor t ed as ( 1 9 9 1 ) 3 SCC 4 7 , wherein it was held : -

¶15

“7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not

¶16

¶17

acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others, [ 1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others, [ 1986] 4 SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, [ 1985] 1 SCR 899”.

¶18

In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, I do not find any justification in directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Para Teacher. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed.

¶19

(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL),J.

¶20

Gunjan Kumar Jr. PA

Smt Raj Rani Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Raj Rani Sharma 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Biyani Sikshan Samiti Vs State Animal and Husbsndry Depors

Sanjay Surolia Vs Principal Secretar andORS

Namita Sharma Vs H S Meena and Another

Kamlesh Kumar Raigar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Narendra Singh @ Jarnel Singh Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Abdul Manaan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp