Disposed

Nepal Singh Meena v. U O I and Anr.

Rajasthan HC17 May 2017CW/197/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This common order disposed of numerous writ petitions challenging the recruitment to Constable posts in paramilitary forces. The court accepted assurances from the Union of India regarding transparency and directed the Secretariat to hold an inquiry and publish detailed merit lists.

What did the court decide?

Directions to Secretary, Staff Selection Commission to hold inquiry into recruitment malpractices, publish merit lists with reasons for appointments, and pass reasoned order.

Nepal Singh Meena Vs U O I and Anr. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2867 / 2017

¶3

Kashi Ram

¶4

----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Anr
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3858 / 2012
Narendra Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Staff Selection Commi
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8086 / 2015
Subhash Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
Staff Selection Commi
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8087 / 2015
Hawa Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
Staff Selection Commi
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8088 / 2015
Pratap Singh
----Petitioner
Versus

¶5

(2 of 20)

¶6

[CW-2867/2017]

¶7

Staff Selection Commi

¶8

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8360 / 2015 Krishan And Ors ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3317 / 2016 Manoj Kumar Natwariya ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Ors ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4820 / 2016 Yashveer Singh ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4821 / 2016 Mukesh Kumar Bajia ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent

¶9

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4822 / 2016 Manish Kumar Dadwaria

¶10

(3 of 20)

¶11

[CW-2867/2017]

¶12

----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6113 / 2016
Manoj Kumar Kulharya
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7678 / 2016
Sita Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7679 / 2016
Mukesh Kumar Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7693 / 2016
Dinesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent

¶13

(4 of 20)

¶14

[CW-2867/2017]

¶15

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8713 / 2016 Chhailu Ram ----Petitioner Versus

¶16

U O I And Anr

¶17

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8714 / 2016 Ramesh Chand Yadav ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8715 / 2016 Mukesh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8716 / 2016 Sunil Kumar Saini ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8717 / 2016 Ramesh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus

U O I And Anr

(5 of 20)

[CW-2867/2017]

----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8718 / 2016
Devi Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8719 / 2016
Surendra Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8720 / 2016
Prahlad Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8807 / 2016
Ramkesh Meena
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I & Ors.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8903 / 2016
Ramawatar Jat
----Petitioner

¶22

(6 of 20)

¶23

[CW-2867/2017]

¶24

Versus Uoi & Ors. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8904 / 2016 Lavkush Ram ----Petitioner Versus U O I & Ors. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9249 / 2016 Suresh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus Uoi & Ors. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9257 / 2016 Pushpendra Saini ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9380 / 2016 Subhash Chandra Saini ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent

¶25

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9387 / 2016 Veer Pal Singh Bhuriya

¶26

(7 of 20)

¶27

[CW-2867/2017]

¶28

----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9444 / 2016
Dinesh
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9445 / 2016
Daya Ra
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9453 / 2016
Jai Ram Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9468 / 2016
Chunni Lal
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr

----Respondent

(8 of 20)

[CW-2867/2017]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10635 / 2016 Sagar Mal ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10818 / 2016 Anil Kumar ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11172 / 2016 Rajendra Kumar Mehra ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11201 / 2016 Subhash Chand Yadav ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14438 / 2016 Mukesh Kumar Yadav ----Petitioner Versus

(9 of 20)

CW-2867/2017]

U O I And Anr

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14439 / 2016 Subhash Chand Gurjar

¶37

----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15302 / 2016
Surendra Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16079 / 2016
Rajesh Kumar Jakhar
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 51 / 2017
Suraj Mal
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 56 / 2017
Prahlad Singh
----Petitioner

¶38

(10 of 20)

¶39

[CW-2867/2017]

¶40

Versus U O I&Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 58 / 2017 Pankaj Meena ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 75 / 2017 Vinod Singh ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 79 / 2017 Buddi Prakash Meena ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 146 / 2017 Bhanwar Lal Meena ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 147 / 2017

(11 of 20)

[CW-2867/2017]

Sher Singh Meena

----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 150 / 2017 Chetan Singh Meena ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 194 / 2017 Rakesh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 195 / 2017 Gajendra Pal ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 196 / 2017 Bachchh Raj Singh ----Petitioner Versus U O I And Anr

(12 of 20)

[CW-2867/2017]

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 197 / 2017 Nepal Singh Meena

----Petitioner

U O I And Anr

----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 198 / 2017
Simbhu Dayal Saini
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 403 / 2017
Dharmendra Singh Dagur
----Petitioner
Versus
U O I And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3104 / 2017
Mukesh Kumar And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India And Anr
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3105 / 2017
Harendra Singh And Ors
----Petitioner

Versus

(13 of 20)

[CW-2867/2017]

Union Of India And Anr

¶58

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3106 / 2017 Jitendra Singh Shekhawat And Ors

¶59

----Petitioner

¶60

Versus

¶61

Union Of India And Anr

¶62

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3110 / 2017 Danaram Bijraniya And Ors ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Anr ----Respondent

¶63

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3111 / 2017 Mohan Lal Meena And Ors ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3112 / 2017 Suresh Kumar And Ors ----Petitioner

¶64

Versus

¶65

Union Of India And Anr

¶66

----Respondent

¶67

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3113 / 2017 Ashok Kumar And Ors

(14 of 20)

[CW-2867/2017]

----Petitioner

Versus

Union Of India And Anr

¶73

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3114 / 2017 Surajmal And Ors ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3199 / 2017 Nujesh Kumar And Anr ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3317 / 2017 Jai Narain Saini And Ors ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3352 / 2017 Dharmendra Kumar Yadav And Ors ----Petitioner

¶74

Versus Union Of India And Ors ----Respondent

¶75

(15 of 20)

¶76

[CW-2867/2017]

¶77

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3453 / 2017 Sheesh Ram Saini And Ors ----Petitioner Versus

¶78

Union Of India And Anr

¶79

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3740 / 2017 Mahesh Kumar Rawat And Ors ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3741 / 2017 Surender Kumar Sharma ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4758 / 2017 Mahendra Singh Gurjar ----Petitioner Versus Union Of India And Anr ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4765 / 2017 Ramkran Singh ----Petitioner Versus

¶80

Union Of India And Anr

(16 of 20)

[CW-2867/2017]

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Sharma (Ganthola),

¶85

Mr. Sanjay Mehla, Mr. Anurag Shukla, Mr. Rajveer Gurjar & Mr. Rajendra Kumar Saini

¶86

For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.D. Rastogi, Additional Solicitor General,

¶87

Mr. Anand Sharma & Mr. J.P. Gargey

¶88

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶89

Judgment

¶90

17/05/2017

¶91

By this common order, bunch of writ petitions bearing No. 2867/2017, 3858/2012, 8086/2015, 8087/2015, 8088/2015, 8360/2015, 3317/2016, 4820/2016, 4821/2016, 4822/2016, 6113/2016, 7678/2016, 7679/2016, 7693/2016, 8713/2016 , 8714/2016, 8715/2016, 8716/2016, 8717/2016, 8718/2016, 8719/2016, 8720/2016, 8807/2016, 8903/2016, 8904/2016, 9249/2016, 9257/2016, 9380/2016, 9387/2016, 9444/2016, 9445/2016, 9453/2016, 9468/2016, 10635/2016, 10818/2016, 11172/2016, 11201/2016, 14438/2016, 14439/2016, 15302/2016, 16079/2016, 51/2017, 56/2017, 58/2017, 75/2017, 79/2017, 146/2017, 147/2017, 150/2017, 194/2017, 195/2017, 196/2017, 197/2017, 198/2017, 403/2017, 3104/2017, 3105/2017, 3106/2017, 3110/2017, 3111/2017, 3112/2017, 3113/2017, 3114/2017, 3199/2017, 3317/2017, 3352/2017,

¶92

(17 of 20)

¶93

[CW-2867/2017]

¶94

3453/2017, 3740/2017, 3741/2017, 4758/2017, 4765/2017, shall be decided together as counsel for the parties are in agreement that on law and facts all petitions are similar.

¶95

One Narendra Singh on 16.3.2012 had filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3858/2012 praying that recruitment made by the respondents to the post of Constable (General Duty) in pursuance of advertisement dated 5.2.2011, be quashed and set aside. A coordinate Bench in the said writ petition had issued notice. Thereafter various other writ petitions were filed. A coordinate Bench had issued notice in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3317/2016, Manoj Kumar Natwariya v. Union of India & Anr. and ordered that all connected matters be listed together.

¶96

Thus, in the present petitions challenge is to the recruitment made to the post of Constable (General Duty) by the Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region, in pursaunce of advertisement dated 5.2.2011 (Annx.1). In the advertisement dated 5.2.2011 (Annx.1), applications were invited for making recruitment to 49,800 posts of Constable in various paramilitary forces.

¶97

In the present writ petitions candidates who appeared for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in various paramilitary forces namely BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB(Sashastra Seema Bal) and ITBP etc. have made a grievance during the course of arguments that Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region, had made large scale bungling in the recruitment and anybody who has been able to grease the palm of the officials of

¶98

(18 of 20)

¶99

[CW-2867/2017]

¶100

Staff Selection Commission have been favoured and meritorious candidates have been ignored.

¶101

It is submitted that the respondents have been shifting their stand. Sometimes they are saying that the selected candidate who is lower in the merit has been selected because in a tie he was selected on the ground that he was more in the age than the candidate having similar marks. It is stated that qua the less meritorious candidates, respondents when nailed have taken a stand that they belong to border area, however, there is no justifiable ground and material to accept the contention that those candidates belong to the border area.

¶102

It is stated that two brothers from the same community and village who had applied from them one brother having 42 marks has been given appointment and the another brother who secured 60 marks has been denied appointment.

¶103

At one juncture, counsel for the parties urged that entire matter for investigation be referred to CBI. Before this court could entertain the prayer that it would be appropriate and just in the facts of the case that process of recruitment qua the State of Rajasthan pertaining to year 2011 be handed over to CBI for making thorough investigation, Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ld. Additional Solicitor General, at the outset has prayed that before this court accept the prayer and adopt above course, an opportunity be given to the Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, to allay apprehensions of the petitioners by passing a detailed reasoned speaking order.

¶104

(19 of 20)

¶105

CW-2867/2017]

¶106

Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ld. Additional Solicitor General, has submitted that to ensure purity and transparency in the matters of the recruitment so that merit remain the only criteria so far the recruitment to the public employment is concerned, Union of India, shall not shy away to take any action at its own end.

¶107

Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ld. Additional Solicitor General, has assured this court that he himself shall intervene and ensure that the transparency is discernible and no wrong is committed by the officials so far recruitment is concerned.

¶108

Accepting the assurance given by Mr. R.D. Rastogi, ld. Additional Solicitor General, the present writ petitions are disposed of by issuing following directions:-

¶109

(a) That all petitioners shall appear before Secretary, Staff Selection Commission and they shall submit comprehensive detailed representation giving details of the candidates who being less meritorious have been appointed.

¶110

(b) That the petitioners in the representation to be filed shall be at liberty to demolish the arguments raised by the respondents that less meritorious persons because of belonging to border area or of being more in age or for any other reasons have been given appointment,

¶111

(c) The petitioners shall also be entitled to raise arguments that wrongly candidates from the State of Rajasthan were diverted to other States even they were less meritorious or qua meritorious persons route of diversion to the other state was not followed. Petitioners shall be also at liberty to ventilate any other grievance

¶112

(20 of 20)

¶113

[CW-2867/2017]

¶114

they have regarding the recruitment process undertaken by Regional Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region. The Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, shall hold a fact finding inquiry into the allegations leveled against the officials who at the relevant time were posted in the Regional Directorate of Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region.

¶115

(d) Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, before decision of the representation shall publish a list of all candidates who appeared in the State of Rajasthan for the recruitment to the post of Constable(General Duty) in paramilitary forces in pursuance to impugned advertisement qua all the categories be it General, OBC, SC or ST. In the list so published marks secured by each candidate shall be depicted along with cut off marks, of the category to which candidate belong.

¶116

(e) In the list, so published, in pursuance of above directions the reasons shall be assigned as to why a particular candidate has been appointed even though he has secured less marks.

¶117

(f) After publication of the list Secretary, Staff Selection Commission shall afford hearing to the petitioners and shall pass a detailed reasoned speaking order within one month after the conclusion of the hearing.

¶118

The petitioners shall be at liberty to re-approach this court, in case, they are aggrieved against the order to be passed by the Secretary, Staff Selection Commission.

¶119

(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J.

Nepal Singh Meena v. U O I and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nepal Singh Meena v. U O I and Anr.

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

Dharam Singh Gurjar andORS Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

Joyata Joshi and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Smt Priya Chauhan Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shivraj @ Kalu Vs State of Rajasthan through P P

Haneef Khan Vs Ishaque Khan

Ravindra Kumar Chaturvedi Vs State