Disposed

Sanjay Kumar v. State and Ors.

Rajasthan HC11 Jul 2017CW/7828/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of writ petitions regarding recruitment disputes and conflicting marks lists. Directing the State to expeditiously workout vacancies, offer appointments to more meritorious candidates, and complete the process within six months.

What did the court decide?

Direct the State to workout vacancies, prepare a merit list for more meritorious candidates within six months, and appoint eligible candidates at a ratio of 1:2.

Sanjay Kumar Vs State and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR.

¶3

. .

¶4

S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 7828 / 2017

¶5

Sanjay Kumar S/o Shri Panna Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Keshav Colony, VPO 8-PSD, Tehsil Ghadsana, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan Through the Secretary, Department of Rural & Panchayati Raj, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶11

District Establishment Committee Through Its Chairman, Zila Parishad Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikash Choudhary on behalf of Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG.

¶13

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶14

Order

¶15

11/07/2017

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record.

¶17

Issue notice. Learned counsel Mr. Vikash Choudhary associate of learned Additional Advocate General Mr. S.S. Ladrecha is directed to accept notices on behalf of the respondents.

¶18

The facts in short are that the respondent-Zila Parishad issued the advertisement dated 24.02.2012 for recruitment to the post of Teacher Grade 111-2012. The selections made in pursuance to the said advertisement were challenged before this Court. Subsequently, the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment and order dated 08.12.2014 passed in Manju Choudhary & ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.35/2014)), while partly allowing the Special Appeals passed the following directions: -

¶19

"We do not find any error of law and agree with the reasoning given by learned Single Judge in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra), pursuant to which the results have to be 14 revised after fresh evaluation of answers. The revision of select list is thus not complete and the process is still open. In the circumstances, in order to allay any apprehension and to protect the interest of the appellants-petitioners, who were appointed, and are under constant threat on the revision of lists under directions of the Court, without any fault attributed to them, we find it appropriate to quash the order dated 30.8,2013 passed by the Secretary and Commissioner,

¶20

Gramin Vikas and Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Primary Education), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the extent that it directs termination of services of those persons, who were ousted from selections on the declaration of the first revised results. We direct that at this stage, they will not be ousted from senlice. The termination orders passed, if any, consequent to the orders dated 30.8.2013, are set aside. The directions given by learned Single Judge in Ramdhan Kumawat V/s The State of Rajasthan & anr. (supra), namely, that the Expert Committee will issue model answer keys afresh and that the results will be revised in accordance with such keys, will be given effect to, leaving the question of its correctness open. The State Government will be at liberty to pass fresh orders, after revising the results and adjusting equities protecting the interest of the appellants-petitioners, to the extent that they will not be ousted from the select list and will be placed as far as possible at the bottom of the revised select list."

¶21

As a result, all those candidates whose names appeared in the revised list were granted appointment and those who had already stood selected, continued to remain in service in spite of the fact that their names no more figured in the revised list. The outfall is that there were many candidates whose names were not in merit in the first list but as per the revised result got more marks than those who were allowed to continue in service by the order of the High Court even though, they now had less marks than the petitioners. The Special Leave Petition against the judgment and order dated 08.12.2014 was also dismissed. Thus, as on date, all those candidates who had got less marks than the

¶22

petitioners are continuing to be retained in service and the same has resulted in filing of number of writ petitions by candidates who now have more marks as per the revised result. Thus, the grievance of the petitioners is that in pursuance to the same selection, the candidates less meritorious to the petitioners are continuing in service, whereas, as per the revised result, the petitioners have got more marks than those who are retained in service by the order of the Court. In short, those who had got less marks than the petitioners are still continuing in service.

¶23

The matter having been settled uptill Hon'ble Supreme Court, the candidates who were appointed in pursuance to the first list shall have to be permitted to continue. The respondentState taking into account the grievance of the petitioners have tried to workout the possibility to adjust as many as candidates as possible from amongst those who have got more marks than the last candidate selected to the extent of the vacancies still available out of the advertised vacancies.

¶24

Learned Additional Advocate General has filed the reply in some of the petitions and has placed on record the order dated 08.02.2017 showing that the Department is trying to ascertain the factual position of the vacancies in each of the Zila Parishads and also taking into account the bifurcation of the vacancies as per the reservations. It is stated that the detail of the vacancies for some of the Zila Parishads have been received and from some of the Zila Parishads, it is likely to be received in few days time and after the whole process is completed, they shall offer the appointment after verification of their documents to the most meritorious

¶25

caind;idmates'fho.m . .. . ~ a,misygst . those who have got more mar'ks tkan 1 . ...-. . . the,.last can8id:ate still working with the depa.rtment in pursu'ance to the selection of the advertisement ,dated 24.02.2012.

¶26

¶27

In view of the fair stand taken by the respondent State andappreciating the exercise Being undertamken by them to meet th'e situation in hand; all the aabovementioned writ petitions aLee disposed of a's under:-

¶28

a. The respon,dfent-State s.hall workout the vacancies in each of the Zila Parishads as exl?editiously as possible. Thereafte,rj, the list shall. be prepared of the candid'ates who have gotmore marks than the last candidate sti*ll working with the department' in pursuance to the directions of this Court passed in Manju Choudhary's case (supra).

¶29

b. Thereafter, the candidates as per the ratio of 1:2 of the vacancies available shall be called for the veri+ication of the documents and the appoin,tments shall be given to such like eligible candidates as per their merit equivalent to the . .

¶30

vacancies ava.ilable with the d:epa:rtment.

¶31

c. This Court is aware that some of the candidates are bound to be left out even though they have got more marks than the last candidate but taking into accoent the limited number of vacancies, the said candidates sha'll have,to try their luck in the next recruitment process afresh.

¶32

d. The said process be completed as. expeditiously as possible preferably within 06 months from today.

¶33

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

Sanjay Kumar v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar v. State 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

Vishal Pandit Vs State

Sammad @ Sammat Khan Vs State

Unkar Vs State and Anr.

Sadin Khan @ Seena Vs State

Rajbala Vs State and Anr.

State Vs Sher Mohd.