Allowed

Vijay Kumar Meena v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC30 May 2018CW/11757/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge bench held the writ application was res-integra and disposed of it by allowing it with a stay on recruitment proceedings, directing authorities to follow statutory qualifications and decide the petitioner's representation within ten weeks.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed; recruitment to proceed per Rules of 1963; authorities to decide representation within ten weeks.

Vijay Kumar Meena Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 11757/2018

¶3

Vijay Kumar Meena S/o Shri Lalji Ram, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Village Post Nangal Bass Reni, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Local Self Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

Director, Local Bodies, Office Of Director, Local Bodies, G- 3, Rajmahal Residency , Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur.

¶8

Rajasthan Municipalities (Administrative And Technical) And (Subordinate And Ministerial) Services Selection Commission Through Its Secretary, Rajasthan Municipalities (Administrative And Technical) And (Subordinate And Ministerial) Services Selection Commission, G-3, Rajmahal Residency, Near Civil Lines Phatak, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s)	: Petitioner	present in person
For Respondent(s)	:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶12

Order

¶13

30/05/2018

¶14

Petitioner, present in person, at the very outset, submits that the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the adjudication made by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ applications lead case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition Number 16517/2016: Kailash Chand Meena & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 10^th October, 2017, observing thus:

¶15

(2 of 4)

¶16

[CW-11757/2018]

¶17

“Indisputably, in the schedule annexed to Rules of 1963, the qualification required for direct recruitment to the post of Sanitary Inspector Grade-II, is, matriculate or its equivalent qualification (Trained).

¶18

Admittedly, the qualifications as contemplated under the Rules of 1963, were not incorporated in the advertisement. A Coordinate Bench of this Court while dealing with somewhat identical controversy in the case of Ahsan Ahmed (supra) wherein the post involved that of Driver (Fire), held thus:

¶19

"It is not in dispute that the qualification mentioned in the advertisement for the Post of Driver (Fire) is at variance to the qualification provided under the Rules of 1963.

¶20

Learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad, AAG, has fairly admitted that the Rules sought to be amended have been approved by the Minister on the initiation of process 4 of selection but Gazette Notification for it has not been issued. The qualification given in the advertisement is as contemplated for amendment in the Rules. The respondents are not authorised to provide qualification different then what exist under the Rules. The advertisement or administrative order cannot supplant the statutory provisions.

¶21

In the instant case, respondents have illegally substituted qualification of the post in question thereby petitioner have been declared ineligible. The qualification should have been as exist under the Rules. The action of the respondents cannot be said to be proper and, accordingly, all the writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the respondents to consider qualification of the petitioners in reference to the Rules of 1963 as were existing on the last date of submission of applications. The respondents would not be guided by the qualification given in the advertisement. 5 If the petitioners are in possession of the qualification given under the Rules, then they would be eligible for the post. In pursuance to the interim order, they have already appeared in the selection process thus their result be declared, if not already declared.

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[CW-11757/2018]

¶24

If the petitioners remain aggrived with any other issue then would be at liberty to take legal recourse for it. With the aforesaid, all the writ petitions are allowed with the direction aforesaid. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file."

¶25

In the case of Ranjit Kumar Meher (supra), the Apex Court of the land in no uncertain terms observed that there cannot be any appointment in violation of Rules. Qualification is to be seen with respect to the Rules and not the advertisement inviting applications.

¶26

For the reasons and discussions aforesaid, the writ applications suceed and are hereby allowed.

¶27

The respondents are directed to proceed further with the recuritment process, which was stayed by interim orders of this Court, essentially in accordance with the qualifications as contemplated under the Rules of 1963.

¶28

A copy of this order be placed in each of the connected file.

¶29

Needless to observe that if the petitioners are still aggrieved of any consequential action on conclusion of the recuritment process; they would be at liberty to avail of legal remedy in accordance with law.

¶30

No Costs.”

¶31

It is further contended that for the present; the petitioner would be satisfied, if the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner, within a time frame, in the backdrop of the adjudication in the case of Kailash Chand Meena & Anr. (supra), which he is ready and willing to address within two weeks hereinafter.

¶32

In view of the limited prayer addressed; the instant writ proceedings are closed with a direction to the petitioner to address a comprehensive representation ventilating the grievances raised herein.

¶33

In case, a representation is so addressed within the aforesaid period, the State-respondents are directed to consider and decide

¶34

(4 of 4)

¶35

[CW-11757/2018]

¶36

the same by a reasoned and speaking order as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. However, in no case later than ten weeks from the date of receipt of the representation along with a certified copy of this order.

¶37

With the observations and directions, as indicated above, the writ application stands disposed off.

¶38

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J
SS/118

Vijay Kumar Meena v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vijay Kumar Meena 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Munesh Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Monika Kumari and Anr. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Manesh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Jamshed Khan and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Sushila Dhaka Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Idrees Khan Adn Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.