Allowed

Sushma Kumari v. State Panchayati Raj Anr.

Rajasthan HC15 Nov 2017CW/19355/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition regarding missed document verification dates for a teaching post, the High Court granted petitioners one more opportunity at a fixed alternative date to produce their documents, citing compelling circumstances.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to give one more opportunity to petitioners for document verification on 16th or 17th November, 2017.

Sushma Kumari Vs State Panchayati Raj Anr. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19355 / 2017

¶3

Sushma Kumari D/o Laxman Prasad Bansal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Sumit Medical Store, Kathumar Road, Kherli, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 12221332).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Alwar.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ram Pratap Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.K.Gupta AAG

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR Order

¶11

15/11/2017

¶12

The grievance of the petitioner is that he could not appear on stipulated date for document verification for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-2)

¶13

This Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.18992/2017 (Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and other connected writs, decided on 08.11.2017 have disposed of the writ petitions by giving direction to the concerned Zila Parishad that they should provide one more opportunity to the petitioners in those writ petitions for their document verification.

¶14

Mr. S.K.Gupta, AAG appears on behalf of the respondents and submits that the date which is already fixed by the Court i.e. 16^th or 17^th November, 2017 may not be changed and if the

¶15

(2 of 5)

¶16

[CW-19355/2017]

¶17

present petitioner is to appear for her document verification, she is required to appear before the concerned Zila Parishad on 16^th or 17^th November, 2017.

¶18

In the case of Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), this Court has passed the following order:-

¶19

“Since, the present batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners with a common grievance, therefore, the same has been taken up together and decided by this common order.

¶20

The petitioners are the candidates, who have participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III. The recruitment process was initiated by issuing advertisement in 2013 by the different Zila Parishad for making the appointment on the aforesaid post. The result of the said examination was declared in August, 2017 and the cutoff marks were also issued by calling the candidates 1.5 times in proportion to the vacancies advertised.

¶21

The required candidates when failed to join the Department, the respondents issued the second list in October, 2017 and again issued the cutoff marks of the second list and notified the candidates for document verification in the same ratio of 1.5 times against the vacancies, which were available.

¶22

The present petitioners are the candidates, who could not attend the office of Zila Parishad concerned, for document verification on the dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned.

¶23

Grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions is about the document verification carried out only by issuing advertisement in the newspaper and not by personal information sent to them. The petitioners have pleaded that the respondents ought to have sent personal information to the petitioners for document verification. The petitioners have enumerated their various difficulties in not appearing on the stipulated date for document verification.

¶24

The petitioners have also taken a plea that the advertisement was issued in the year 2013 and due to various litigations, the document verification was scheduled after a gap of about 4 years, that too, after revision of result.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Clause No. 16 of the advertisement issued for making recruitment process clearly shows the manner of submitting the online applications by the incumbents.

¶26

(3 of 5)

¶27

[CW-19355/2017]

¶28

Counsel submits that recruiting agency had clearly given out the instructions to the effect that the candidates will be informed about their roll number and Examination Center on their E-mail ID/Mobile Number. Counsel submits that if the Department was obliged to inform the candidates about their roll number and Examination Center, the non-communication of personal intimation about document verification is much more fatal for the candidates, counsel has submitted that inclusion of petitioners names in the merit list for consideration for appointment results into a crystallized right and as such, at this juncture, there is more responsibility on the part of Recruiting Agency to send the intimation to the candidates by personal mode.

¶29

Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, has appeared on behalf of the respondents and opposed the aforesaid prayer of the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents contended that the requisite intimation was published in the newspaper by the Zila Parishad concerned and also uploaded on the web-site of the Department. Mr. S.K. Gupta AAG also submits that there was no requirement of sending the intimation to the candidates by any other mode and in particularly the personal service. Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, submits that appointments were made in the year 2015 itself, but due to controversy raised about minimum marks obtained in RTET, the matter travelled to the Supreme Court and as such, the Department was to make appointments after the judgment of the Apex Court.

¶30

Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that initially the appointments were given only to those candidates, who have obtained minimum 60% marks in RTET and all other candidates were not eligible.

¶31

Counsel for the respondent also submitted that the candidates who had applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued in 2013, should have been vigilant and they were required to keep track of the advertisements and once the intimation was uploaded on the web-site, no other mode of service is contemplated either in the Rules or in the instructions.

¶32

Mr. S.K. Gupta, AAG, has drawn attention of the Court towards Sub-Instruction No. (9) of the Instructions No. 19 wherein general instructions were given. Counsel for the respondents submits that all the candidates were informed that all information relating to the Examination was available on the web-site i.e. www.examtgt.rajasthan.gov.in.

¶33

I have considered the rival submissions made by both the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

It is not disputed that the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-III was conducted and set in

¶35

(4 of 5)

¶36

[CW-19355/2017]

¶37

motion in 2013 and due to various round of litigations, finally the second list of selected candidates with cutoff marks was issued in August, 2017.

¶38

The appointments, which were made in the year 2015, were only on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates, when minimum qualifying marks are 60% in RTET.

¶39

All the petitioners in the instant batch of writ petitions, are the candidates who are claiming to be in the select list as per the second revised list, which has been issued in October, 2017 and they have to appear for document verification before the Zila Parishad concerned.

¶40

The Court finds that there were reasonable grounds in some of the cases, which were beyond control of the candidates, which prevented them from appearing on the stipulated date before the Zila Parishad concerned. Learned counsel for the parties have pointed out that in some of the cases, the person concerned was not keeping well, the lady delivered the child and there were many other compelling circumstances.

¶41

The Court finds that since all the petitioners are claiming themselves in the selected list and they were having more marks than the last cutoff marks declared in their respective category in the revised result, they deserve indulgence and the Court deems it proper to grant them one more opportunity to produce their documents for verification before the Zila Parishad concerned.

¶42

Though, the Selection Process is already delayed, yet considering the fact that the Department itself has issued the notice to the different candidates and also uploaded on the web-site, no harm would be caused to the Department, if in the interest of justice, one more opportunity is granted to these candidates.

¶43

The Court without expressing any opinion about the rival submissions of the parties about requirement of sending the personal intimation to the candidates, suffice it to say that candidates are also required to remain vigilant about the entire recruitment process and official web-site is always available to them to see the developments which take place from time to time.

¶44

In view of the above, the present batch of writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents and Zila Parishad concerned that they should give one more opportunity to the petitioners to come forward for their document verification. It is made clear that said direction is only with regard to the document verification of the petitioners who were prevented from appearing on the early dates given by the Zila Parishad concerned.

¶45

It is also made clear that mere verification of document will not confer any right in favour of the

¶46

(5 of 5)

¶47

[CW-19355/2017]

¶48

petitioners to claim appointment, however, if the petitioners are finding their name/place in the merit or they are otherwise found suitable, their case will accordingly be considered for appointment in accordance with law. It is further directed that the petitioners will appear before the Zila Parishad concerned either on 16^th or 17^th November, 2017 for document verification and the Zila Parishad concerned will verify their documents, when they appear either of the date i.e. 16^th or 17^th November, 2017.

¶49

Accordingly all the writ petitions are disposed of. Stay applications also stand closed.”

¶50

The present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms as passed in SBCWP No.18821/2017 (Brijesh Kumari Vs.

¶51

State of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 08.11.2017.

¶52

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J.

¶53

Seema/170

Sushma Kumari v. State Panchayati Raj Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma Kumari v. State Panchayati Raj Anr.

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

Smt Gaura Devi Vs Hanuman and Ors.

Ram Prakash Vs Purshottam Agarwal and Others

Jagdish Prasad and Another Vs Vishnu Charan Malik

Smt Maina Kanwar and Others Vs Smt Laxmi Devi and Another

Narendra Kumar Arya Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Mohit Hada Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp