Disposed

Bhanwar Hemant Singh Jadon v. State of Raj and Anr.

Rajasthan HC13 Nov 2017CW/20303/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This judgment considers writ petitions filed by candidates selected for Teacher Grade III posts who missed the document verification date. The court granted indulgence and directed authorities to provide a second chance despite the lack of personal intimation, citing compelling grounds beyond the candidates' control.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions have been disposed of by directing the respondents and Zila Parishad to provide one more opportunity to the petitioners for document verification before 16th or 17th November.

Bhanwar Hemant Singh Jadon Vs State of Raj 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. 20173 / 2017

¶3

Vivek Maheshwari S/o Shri Gopal Lal Maheshwari, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Ward No. 23, Opposite Shastri Nursing Home, Station Road, Gangapur City, Sawai Madhopur (raj.)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Government of n,al-pi rector (S B M) , mentary Education, Rural qe2;lo~ment and Government * Rajasthan, -t "./$ 5s. 4 4% 4 & 3. Zilaqarishad, Sawaimadhopur Through Its Chief Ex6cutive Officer.

¶6

Ward No. 20, Mohalla

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

I State of Raj Development and ent, Government of Rajasthan, Governm

¶9

Deputy Commissio Panchayati Raj Ele ion, ,Rural Development and Panchayati Raj epartmemk -$q ----.----? bsT$ qf$j **-,ma-. ;i. . over&qnent %&- @"-----il -%+$ q ,: of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Ja~pur * a

¶10

Zila Parishad, Baran Through Its Chief Executive Officer.

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20300 / 2017

¶12

Santa Ram Meena S/o Shri Jagdish Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Karela Post Dhamun Khurd, Tehsil & District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶13

Versus

¶14

The State of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶15

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶16

SIBl Civil Writ Petition NO. 20301 / 2017

¶17

ri -a G$&$&j?h,apd Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, if ~ehAl4l$h&ndar, 2' District Sawai *.

¶18

Madhopur e 8-b f-") ~4." Versus i-2* ----Petitioner .. 8% 8' I. T tate of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secfetary, Panchayati Raj D of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. The Chief Exe d Sawaimadhopur, District Sawai Madh

¶19

i ----Respondents

¶20

Bhanwar Hemant Sing rij Mohan Singh Jadon, Aged About 32 Years, , Behind Jail, Viratnagar, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.) ----Petitioner

¶21

The State Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Depart ecretariat, - -Z Jaipur.

¶22

g 2. The Chief Executive *officer, Zila Parishad- Sawai Madhopur, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶23

SIBl Civil Writ Petition NO. 20314 / 2017

¶24

Nisha Daughter of Shri Ugmaram Choudhary, B/c Jat, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Mohalla Jatawas, Post Pisangan, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer (Rajasthan)

¶25

Versus

¶26

State of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayati Raj Department, Panchayati Raj, G.ovt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶27

Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Ajmer (Rajasthan)

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

SIBl Civil Writ Petition NO. 20329 / 2017

¶30

Irshad Babu S/o Insaph Ahmed, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Deshwaliyan District Sawaimadhopur, ----Petitioner (J2 Versus v U,%, @"J% 1. ThepSzte of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Pancfhyati Raj Ya _+GG">_ Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶31

The Chief Executi

¶32

awaimadhopur. ----Respondents

¶33

Anita Kumari D/o Lax 3 Years, R/o Village Sujapur, Post Dun ar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner

¶34

I. State of Rajasth y-cum-commissioner, Panchayati Raj, Raja

¶35

The Chief Executive Ofticer Cum %Additional Examination Controller, Zila arishadif?@3%T@"@ji. y4 W( kq &-') %a2

¶36

----Respondents

¶37

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah, Adv., Mr.Manish Parihar, Adv, for Mr.Tanveer Ahmad, Adv., Mr.Kapil Gupta, Adv., Mr.Ram Pratap Saini, Adv.

¶38

For Respondent(s) : Mr.S.K.Gupta, AAG

¶39

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

¶40

Order

¶41

The present batch of writ petitions relates to the common grievance of the petitioners that they could not appear on stipulated date for document verification for the post of Teacher Grade 111 (Level-2)

¶42

This Court in S.B.Civil Writ Petition N0.18992/2017 (Brijesh Kumari Vs. Stat asthan & Ors.) and other ~~n dl4 .Al connected LzOl@zihave disposed of the 4 9-"ELK writ to the concerne&~~ila Parishad ff > ould provide one more opportunity to tkzgstitioners 8 p i petitions for their document verification.

¶43

the respondents by tl he Court i.e. nged and if the ment verification, ncerned Zila Parishad on

¶44

In the case of of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), this Court ha rder: -

¶45

"Since, the pre;qt2f2c;qfzy$$ petitions has been filed by the pe%le,ners w~th a' %common grievance, therefore, the same has been taken up together and decided by this common order.

¶46

The petitioners are the candidates, who have participated in the selection process for the post of Teacher Grade-111. 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.

¶47

The required candidates when failed to join the

¶48

(5 of 7)

¶49

[CW-20173/2017 & Ors .]

¶50

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.

¶51

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. 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 nt to them. The petitioners have. -pl ndents ought to 4 have sent persgna petitioners for document$ver?ficati a%e e-numerated 8p?f "i- ,@* difficulties in not appearing on t;h$stipulated ment verification. /,. itioners have also taken a plea bhat the * t was issued in the year 2013 and 'q:ubto various litigations, the document verification was hat too, after revision of resul

¶52

er has further submitted th e advertisement rly shows the manner of su tions by the incum bents.

¶53

agency had clearly e effect that the their roll number and Mobile Number. Counsel submits ent was obliged to roll number and Examination C n of personal intimation abou uch more fatal that inclusion of petitioners na nsideration for and as such, y on the part of Recruiting Agency to send the intimation to the candidates by personal mode.

¶54

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

¶55

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.

¶56

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.

¶57

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 - T 2 .T?T advertisemenFd [x%egh$-qtl?;lra$qp was uploaded on the web-site, , no,okker mode of- se.;y@d is contemplated 4 ,7'1. either in th4e Rules or in the instructions. 41 J "- B'-.~ eM,'k~.. Gupta, AAG, has drawn atteaPo~n. of the Coui@+$awards Sub-Instruction No. (9) of the ~&t-r$~tions y.,0+~9 wherein general instructions were given. ~Gounsel fobthe respondents submits that all the candidates,-.were 23 informed that all information relating to the Examination

¶58

rial available on post of Teacher ducted and set in motion in 2013 finally the secon ndidates with cutoff marks was issued in

¶59

arks are 6O0/0 in

¶60

nt batch of writ re claiming to be in the select list asmpy;,m@~~8cod33&{sed list, which has been issued in O~.~o;b'ei!~~2~~~ ? -4 "9 a.@@t&y have to appear for document verification before the'zila Parishad concerned.

¶61

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.

¶62

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

¶63

(7 of 7)

¶64

[CW-20173/2017 €4 Ors .]

¶65

the,ir 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.

¶66

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.

¶67

The Court without expressing any opinion about the rival submissions of the parties about requirement of -% I- !F ?ir "n. alb intimatq kodthe candidates, suffice ' JJ-AJ! 4 p- 6 h &dates are also dequired to remain P-7. entire recruitment $io@ss and official L d47 always available to them to), see the 15;' .p+ which take place from time to tin;/

¶68

view of the above, the present batch pf,writ %&J disposed of with a direction toupthe respondents and Zila Parishad concerned that they should ers to come made clear that said dire o the document verification of prevented from he Zila Parishad concerned.

¶69

verification of document will n t in favour of the petitioners to cl er, if the n the merit or eir case will in accordance e petitioners will ed either on 16th or 17th Novemb cation and the documents, when or 17th November, isposed of. Stay applications also stand closed.JJ

¶70

The present batch of writ petitions is also disposed of in the same terms as passed in SBCWP No.18821/2017 (Brijesh Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) on 08.11.2017.

¶71

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR)J.

¶72

NK/lI7 to 120,122 to 124 & 47

Bhanwar Hemant Singh Jadon v. State of Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhanwar Hemant Singh Jadon v. State of Raj and 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

Govindsahay through His Lrs Vs Manak Lal and Ors.

Ramkishore and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Heeralal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Kailash Gurjar Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Pankaj Sharma Vs Smt Priyanka Sharma

Chandrabhan Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors.