Disposed

Jyoti Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC30 Aug 2018CW/12419/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Safai Karamchari recruitment by lottery and reserved-category participation in the General Category were upheld. The court accepted carrying forward earlier vacancies and refused OBC age relaxation absent a rule. It disposed of the petitions with directions for grievance decisions within thirty days and protection against termination without a hearing.

What did the court decide?

Outstanding representations to be decided by a Redressal Committee within thirty days; terminations without hearing not to take effect until fresh orders after hearing.

Jyoti Dhariwal Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10496/2018

¶3

Ravi Jajot S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Jajot, Aged About 27 Years, Inside Shri Jain Sr. Sec. School, Ganga Shahar Road, Bikaner.

¶4

Nitin Jajot S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Jajot,, Aged About 29 Years, Inside Shri Jain Sr. Sec. School, Ganga Shahar Road, Bikaner.

¶5

----Petitioners Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Director And Joint Secretary, Local Self Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

Municipal Council, Bikaner Through Commissioner.

¶8

Commissioner, Municipal Council, Nagaur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Civil Writ No. 7064/2018

¶12

Mahendra

¶13

----Petitioner Versus

¶14

The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶15

----Respondents

¶16

S.B. Civil Writ No. 7181/2018

Sanu Devi

----Petitioner

Versus

The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8229/2018

Praveen Dabla & Ors.

----Petitioners

Versus

(2 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

The State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8353/2018

¶31

Naresh & Ors.

¶32

----Petitioners Versus The State of Rajasthan & Ors. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ No. 8721/2018 Abhishek Menaria & Ors. ----Petitioners Versus State of Rajasthan & Anr. ----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ No. 8865/2018 Satish Gujrati ----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 8867/2018 Lal Chand ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 8869/2018 Vinod ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent

¶33

(3 of 63)

¶34

[CW-10496/2018]

¶35

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8904/2018

Balkrishan Khatri

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 8912/2018

¶42

Sonu Chanwariya

¶43

----Petitioner Versus ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 9409/2018

¶44

State Of Rajasthan

¶45

All India Safai Majdoor Congress, Through Its Rajsamand Branch General Secretary

¶46

----Petitioner Versus The State Of Rajasthan ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 10360/2018 Virendra Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan

¶47

----Petitioner Versus ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ No. 10403/2018

Asha Kumari Patidar

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 10513/2018

Kiran Devi

----Petitioner

Versus

(4 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 10627/2018

Sharda

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan

¶66

----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10629/2018
Jamna Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10653/2018
Mohanlal Bohra
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10694/2018
Bhavesh Patidar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10726/2018
Manish Khokhawat
----Petitioner
Versus
The Director Cum Joint Secretary, Local Self Bodies Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10756/2018
Jitendra Kumar

(5 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10762/2018
Varsha Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10764/2018
Smt. Kanchan Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10802/2018
Pramod
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10814/2018
Ravindra
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10904/2018
Pramod Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶73

(6 of 63)

¶74

[CW-10496/2018]

¶75

S.B. Civil Writ No. 10918/2018

¶76

Madan Lal

¶77

----Petitioner

¶78

Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10919/2018
Manju
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 10988/2018
Pawan Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11034/2018
Ajay Gigna
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11150/2018
Nirmal
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11161/2018
Satish Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus

¶79

(7 of 63)

¶80

[CW-10496/2018]

¶81

The State Of Rajasthan

¶82

----Respondent

¶83

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11165/2018

Sushila

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11186/2018
Sanju Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11188/2018
Sunny Gharu
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11189/2018
Rajni Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11192/2018
Durga Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11196/2018
Prahlad

(8 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11247/2018

¶95

Pinki
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11258/2018
Amit Kumar Siyota
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11266/2018
Mithun Harijan
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11279/2018
Sunil Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11280/2018
Ravi Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶96

(9 of 63)

¶97

[CW-10496/2018]

¶98

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11322/2018

¶99

Sangeeta

¶100

----Petitioner

¶101

Versus
State Of Rajasthan,
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11349/2018
Kanta Harijan
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11362/2018
Sanjiv Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan,
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11363/2018
Rajni
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11366/2018
Pinki
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11381/2018
Balvir Singh
----Petitioner
Versus

(10 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11382/2018

¶107

Surya Prakash Bissa

¶108

----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11472/2018
Pooja
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11491/2018
Pankaj Pareek
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11494/2018
Vicki Rathore
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11505/2018
Sunny
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11507/2018
Rajnesh

(11 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan

¶114

----Respondent

¶115

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11597/2018
Amra Ram
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11617/2018
Pradip Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11620/2018
Deepika Jawa
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11657/2018
Ajay
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11682/2018
Lalita Prakash
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶116

(12 of 63)

¶117

[CW-10496/2018]

¶118

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11705/2018

¶119

Sant Lal

¶120

----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11736/2018
Gopal Lohiya
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11805/2018
Bablesh Chanwariya
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11824/2018
Harish Chanwariya
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11868/2018
Prakash
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 11870/2018
Dinesh Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus

(13 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

State Of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ No. 11936/2018

Ram Lal

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 12020/2018
Mohit Tanwar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 12040/2018
Manohar Singh Gurjar
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 12041/2018
Karan Gujrati
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 12045/2018
Smt. Sanju
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 12048/2018
Pritam Kumar

(14 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

----Petitioner

Versus

The State Of Rajasthan

¶135

----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 12051/2018
Shiv Prasad Chanwariya
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 12054/2018
Mukesh
----Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ No. 12111/2018
Rajendra
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12009/2018
Vijay Kumar Pandit
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12033/2018
Soma
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶136

(15 of 63)

¶137

[CW-10496/2018]

¶138

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12517/2018

Kapil Dev

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12631/2018 Anita

¶145

----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12635/2018 Jugal Kishore ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12660/2018 Asha Valmiki ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12688/2018 Jayanti ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12710/2018 Anil ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent

¶146

(16 of 63)

¶147

[CW-10496/2018]

¶148

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12711/2018

¶149

Reena
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10509/2018
Vijay Gharu
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11250/2018
Hansraj
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11726/2018
Vijay Harijan
----Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary, Department of Local Government
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12514/2018
Rajendra Dindor
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12907/2018
Avinash Hans
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶150

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13029/2018

(17 of 63)

[CW-10496/2018]

Lal Chand

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12060/2018
Gopal
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12061/2018
Sunny
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12062/2018
Pradeep Goyal
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12139/2018
Rakesh Chand
----Petitioner
Versus
Thel Director and Joint Secretary
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12157/2018
Ishwar
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶159

(18 of 63)

¶160

[CW-10496/2018]

¶161

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12174/2018

¶162

Saroj Gharu
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12269/2018
Sunita Pandit
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12299/2018
Ghanshyam
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12327/2018
Sandeep Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12332/2018
Mohammad Yamin Hela
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12379/2018
Devki Teji
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶163

(19 of 63)

¶164

[CW-10496/2018]

¶165

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12384/2018

Rahul Lakhan

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12388/2018
Rajneesh Prakash Barasa
---Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12391/2018
Pankaj Lohiya
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12419/2018
Jyoti Dhariwal
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12452/2018
Jyoti
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12608/2018
Aakash Gharu
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶172

(20 of 63)

¶173

[CW-10496/2018]

¶174

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12641/2018

Khushbu

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12666/2018 Laxman Gouri ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12675/2018 Jitendra Pathak ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12717/2018 Rajiya ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12722/2018 Rakesh ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12538/2018 Sanjay Maida ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent

¶181

(21 of 63)

¶182

[CW-10496/2018]

¶183

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13139/2018

Mogu Lal

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13164/2018 Sanju Devi ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13165/2018 Dinesh Kumar ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13194/2018 Vikas ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7980/2018 Sunita ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶190

----Petitioner ----Respondent

¶191

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6805/2018 Santosh Saarvan ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. ----Respondent

¶192

(22 of 63)

¶193

[CW-10496/2018]

¶194

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6806/2018

Anita Devi

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11658/2018
Gulshan Pandit
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11661/2018
Hitesh Lohiya
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10097/2018
Rahul Kumar Hans
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13251/2018
Jeetu
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10176/2018
Rekha
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶199

(23 of 63)

¶200

[CW-10496/2018]

¶201

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13281/2018

Vikram Barasa

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13282/2018 Dhawan Prakash ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.13283/2018 Sumit Gujarati ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7065/2018 Shivraj ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.8862/2018 Bal Ram Singh ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan through Secretary ----Respondent

¶208

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6397/2018 Rohit Pandit & Anr. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & ors. ----Respondent

¶209

(24 of 63)

¶210

[CW-10496/2018]

¶211

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.6418/2018

Nand Kishore

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶216

----Respondent

¶217

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7180/2018 Gorulal & Ors. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.8886/2018 All India Safai Majdoor Congress & Ors. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.9147/2018 Laxman Lal ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.9154/2018 Shankar Lal ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10268/2018 Nirmala ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan ----Respondent

¶218

(25 of 63)

¶219

[CW-10496/2018]

¶220

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10283/2018

¶221

Prashant
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10568/2018
Harvinder Singh
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10584/2018
Vijay Kumar
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10917/2018
Suman
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10987/2018
Manoj Tanwar
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11168/2018
Leela Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent

¶222

(26 of 63)

¶223

[CW-10496/2018]

¶224

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11745/2018

¶225

Aniket
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.12134/2018
Gopal Mehtar
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.10302/2018
Ravindra Jawa
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11706/2018
Namrta Chanwariya
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7067/2018
Sita Devi
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & ors.
----Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7179/2018
Rahul
----Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
----Respondent

¶226

(27 of 63)

¶227

[CW-10496/2018]

¶228

S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.7182/2018

Mahendra Kumar

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶233

----Respondent

¶234

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10220/2018

Ravi

----Petitioner

Versus

State of Rajasthan

----Respondent

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12463/2018

¶241

Krishna Kumar

¶242

----Petitioner Versus The State of Rajasthan & Anr. ----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13249/2018 Sandeep & Anr. ----Petitioner Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajesh Joshi Sr. Advocate, Mr. BL Swami, Mr. Chaitanya Kumar Gehlot, Mr. Trilok Joshi, Mr. Sushil Solanki, Vineet R Dave, Mr.Harshit Bhurani, Mr.Arpit Bhoot, Mr. Arjun Purohit, Mr. Muktesh Maheshwari, Mr. PR Mehta, Ms. Deepika Soni, Mr. Suresh Khadav, Ms. Diksha Jain, Mr. Kan Singh Oad, Mr. Vinay Jain, Mr. Awar Dan Ujjwal, Mr. Shridhar Mehta, Dr. Nikhil Dungawat, Mr. RS Saluja, Mr. MS Purohit, Mr. HS Sidhu, Mr. Teja Ram, Mr. Inderjeet Yadav, Mr. Ram Prasad Singaria, Mr. BS Deora, Mr.Ripudaman Singh Rajpurohit, Mr.Ram Chandra Joshi, Mr.Shrikant Verma, Mr.N.R.Choudhary, Mr.B.P.Rajpurohit, Mr.Vineet Jain, Mr.Parvez Khan

¶243

(28 of 63)

¶244

[CW-10496/2018]

¶245

Moyal, Mr.Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Mr.Mahesh Saini, Mr.Varun Arora, Mr.Abhishek Mehta, Mr.Kaushal Gautam, Mr.Manoj Bohra, Mr.VLS Rajpurohit, Mr.Nikhil Jain, Mr.Mukesh Rajpurohit, Mr.Himmat Jagga, Mr. Rakesh Arora, Mr.M.R.Choudhary, Mr.Bhoop Singh Mund, Mr.Baltej Sandhu, Mr.Nihar Jain, Mr.Anil Vyas, Mr.Zafar Khan, Mr.Akshat Verma, Mr.Vinit Sanadhya, Mr.Mohan Ram Choudhary, Mr.Sandeep Shah, Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, Mr.Rahul Kumar Hans, Mr.Ashok Choudhary, Mr.Amit Gaur, Mr.Sanjay Mathur, Mr.Sanjay Raj Pandit, Mr.Shanker Rajpurohit, Mr.Rakesh Matoria,

¶246

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Joshi and Mr. Parvez Khan for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG

¶247

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶248

Judgment

¶249

30/08/2018

¶250

Defects, if any pointed out by the office in any of the writ petitions, are ignored.

¶251

Learned counsel for both the sides agree for final hearing of the writ petitions at this stage.

¶252

The present controversy arises out of an exercise for recruitment on the post of Safai Karamchari, as initiated by the Local Self Department, Government of Rajasthan for various Local Bodies viz., Municipalities, Municipal Councils and Municipal Corporations, vide common advertisement dated 13.04.2018. The entire recruitment process is being conducted, and all these petitions listed today before this Court, are concerned with the grievances of the petitioners pertaining to the said recruitment process.

¶253

(29 of 63)

¶254

[CW-10496/2018]

¶255

The recruitment process in question is governed by the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 2009 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 2009 ) and the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 ( hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 2012’ ).

¶256

The Bar at large, including all the learned counsels representing the parties in these writ petitions, were invited to make their submissions, and the submissions at length have been made before this Court, while raising various issues, which are of broad nature, but are arising out of a common recruitment for common post of Safai Karamchari in pursuance of common advertisement dated 13.04.2018. The submissions reflecting the various issues, so urged before this Court, are being set out in the following paragraphs.

¶257

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the lottery system being adopted by the respondents was illegal, arbitrary, and did not adhere to the necessary parameters of law.

¶258

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the migration of the reserved classes from one category to another category, particularly from SC/ST and OBC to General Category, was not permissible in the given circumstances, when a comparative merit was not there. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court in Swaroop Kumar Acharya & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.7371/2014 decided on 09.05.2017) , which reads as under:-

¶259

(30 of 63)

¶260

[CW-10496/2018]

¶261

“All the abovementioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.

¶262

The petitioners herein are seeking appointment to the post of Safai Employees in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.05.2012. 11376 posts were advertised for the post of Safai Employees vide advertisement dated 25.05.2012. Out of these posts, 601 posts were to be filled by Municipal Council, Bikaner. From these 601 posts, 307 posts were kept for General category and out of these 307 posts, 206 posts were to be filled from General category. It is therefore evident that the total posts were 206 but only 52 candidates (38 Male candidates + 14 Female candidates) in the General category applied. The respondents decided to fill up these posts through lottery based system. While doing so, the names of the candidates belonging to the General category and SC category were put together in the same lot before drawing the lottery. Whereas, total 206 posts were required to be filled by General category and only 52 candidates were available. Hence, all the 52 candidates were entitled to be appointed before transferring the remaining posts in the category of SC.

¶263

No explanation, rational or the object behind joining together both the categories is forthcoming. The very method of joining both the categories together while drawing lottery and thus depriving the petitioners for appointment by putting them up in a disadvantageous position vis. a vis. the Scheduled Caste category (SC) is unfair and in this manner is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. The same is not supported by Rule, Order of Regulation. It has caused prejudice to the petitioners. The selection of the petitioners which was certain in view of the candidates being less than the number of posts was not only nullified but the petitioners were deprived of their

¶264

(31 of 63)

¶265

[CW-10496/2018]

¶266

rightful claim under the General category for which the posts were kept separately to be filled from the said category. Adopting the procedure of filing up the posts by a lottery system is one thing and violating the clause in the advertisement vide which a fixed number of posts were kept for each respective category in spite of the availability of the candidates in the said category is another. While filling up the posts through lottery system, the respondents could not have reduced or increased the number of posts to be filled under the respective category.

¶267

While issuing notices, the directions were issued to keep the posts reserved for the candidates who had filed the writ petition. Out of 52 candidates, only 22 candidates (19 Male candidates + 3 Female Candidates) from the General category have filed the present writ petition.

¶268

In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioners forthwith if otherwise qualified and eligible. The needful be done within two months from today. However, it is clarified that the said appointment shall relate back to the date of filing of the present writ petition i.e. November, 2014. However, only notional benefits shall be given.”

¶269

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the original advertisement issued by the respondents on 13.04.2018 did not carry any parameter for operating the reservation, which was subsequently brought in by the respondents by bringing in the circular dated 29.05.2018, whereby the parameters for operating the reservation were prescribed. Thus, bringing in of such a criteria or prescribing such a parameter for implementation of reservation amounts to

¶270

(32 of 63)

¶271

[CW-10496/2018]

¶272

changing the rules of the game, and that too, in the midst of the recruitment process, which was not permissible under the law.

¶273

The next submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the candidates entitled for reservation, by their migration in the General Category, have to secure higher merits, as per the reservation policy, and since lottery is a chance and is purely a gamble, therefore, in view of non-availability of the comparative merit, a candidate belonging to the reserved category cannot be permitted to migrate into the General Category, and any migration contrary to the comparative merit, shall be in clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

¶274

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited and have also been reproduced hereinabove, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that any deviation from the Rules for the purpose of selection process, shall render the entire selection process bad. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the OBC Category candidates in Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) Area were entitled for reservation, and should have been given such reservation strictly in accordance with the reservation policy of the State, which has not been done in relation to the recruitment process in question.

¶275

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the age relaxation was not specifically given to the OBC Category candidates in the selection process.

¶276

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in accordance with the Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2014, Rule 1-A in the various Rules mentioned in column 2 of the Scheduled appended was inserted,

¶277

(33 of 63)

¶278

[CW-10496/2018]

¶279

whereby the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 shall only apply as the service is not provided in the Schedule of Rajasthan Various Service (Amendment) Rules, 2014.

¶280

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that as per the Schedule, municipal service of Safai Karamchari in question was not included in the said Schedule, and therefore, the TSP Circular shall not apply and the OBC reservation was required to be given.

¶281

Learned counsel for the petitioners further pointed out from the Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 that the Local Authority do not fall within the term ‘Government’, as defined by clause 24 of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.

¶282

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the legislature in the State of Rajasthan does neither include the State Government nor it shall include the District Board or a local Authority.

¶283

Learned counsel for the petitioners stated that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012, which provides for a mechanism for conducting the recruitment process, has not been adopted by the respondents in the present recruitment process.

¶284

The said Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 is quoted below for ready reference:-

¶285

“ Procedure for direct recruitment.- The Chief Municipal Officer shall invite applications for direct recruitment through advertisement in the two state level daily newspapers and shall make appointment on

¶286

(34 of 63)

¶287

[CW-10496/2018]

¶288

the basis of either conducting written examination/interview/merit/experience or on the basis of one or more criteria as mentioned above.”

¶289

18.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners however, submitted that the CEO of the concerned Local Body has never carried out such advertisement.

¶290

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 required the advertisement to be carried out by the concerned Local Bodies and the advertisement was to be issued by the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Local Bodies. Thus, accordingly, the criteria was to be decided by the concerned Local Body itself.

¶291

Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that in light of such violation of Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012, the selection process is bad.

¶292

Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the advertisement in question carried a parameter for checking and verification of the forms, which was not conducted by the respondents, and thus, alongwith all eligible candidates, ineligible candidates were also allowed to participate in the lottery, thus creating illegitimate competition.

¶293

Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the vacancies of the year 2012 were carried forward to 2018, which was contrary to law, as earlier recruitment of 2012 has been jeopardized for no good reason, and such vacancies have been merged with the vacancies of the year 2018. To substantiate this submission, learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶294

(35 of 63)

¶295

[CW-10496/2018]

¶296

in Hukam Chand Shyam Lal Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1976 SC 789 , relevant para 18 of which reads as under:-

¶297

“ 18. It is well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all the other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden. It is all the more necessary to observe this rule where power is of a drastic nature and its exercise in a mode other than the one provided, will be violative of the fundamental principles of natural justice. Now, in the present case, if the telephones of the appellants were to be disconnected on the ground of misuse, then they had to give, in consonance with the principles of natural justice, opportunity to the appellants to explain their conduct before taking action under Rule 427 read with Rules 416 and 421. Resort to the wrong and more drastic course provided in Rule 422, on a ground which was not germane to an action under that Rule, vitiates the impugned order, particularly, when it is manifest that in making the impugned order, the General Manager was influenced more by the existence of ‘public emergency’ certified by the Delhi Administration.”

¶298

Learned counsel for the petitioners have also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Anupam Sharma & Ors. V. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2009(1) RLW 790 (Raj.) , relevant para 26 of which reads as under:-

¶299

“ 26. The law is well settled on the issue that when a particular thing is to be done in a particular manner, then the same mode is to be followed and all other

¶300

(36 of 63)

¶301

[CW-10496/2018]

¶302

modes are prohibited. Therefore, even if the Ordinance and Statutes are said to be adopted, then for the same also, the approval of the State Government is necessary which is lacking in the instant case.”

¶303

Learned counsel for the petitioners have also placed reliance on the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Mansukhlal Vithaldas Chauhan Vs. State of Gujarat, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622 , relevant para 23 of which reads as under:-

¶304

“ 23. In the performance of this duty, if the authority in whom the discretion is vested under the statute, does not act independently and passes an order under the instructions and orders of another authority, the Court would intervene in the matter, quash the order and issue a mandamus to that authority to exercise its own discretion.”

¶305

Learned counsel for the petitioners have further relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Nagayach & Ors., reported in (2013) 7 SCC 25 , relevant paras 36 and 37 of which read as under:-

¶306

“ 36. Statutory functionaries like the Registrar/Joint Registrar of cooperative societies functioning under the respective Cooperative Act must be above suspicion and function independently without external pressure. When an authority invested with the power purports to act on its own but in substance the power is exercised by external guidance or pressure, it would amount to non-exercise of power, statutorily vested. Large number of cases are coming up before this

¶307

(37 of 63)

¶308

[CW-10496/2018]

¶309

Court and the High Courts in the country challenging the orders of supersession and many of them are being passed by the statutory functionaries due to external influence ignoring the fact that they are ousting a democratically elected Board, the consequence of which is also grave because the members of the Board of Directors would also stand disqualified in standing for the succeeding election as well.

¶310

37. The Registrar/Joint Registrar, while exercising powers of supersesion has to form an opinion and that opinion must be based on some objective criteria, which has nexus with the final decision. A statutory authority shall not act with pre-conceived notion and shall not speak his master’s voice, because the formation of opinion must be his own, not of somebody else in power, to achieve some ulterior motive. There may be situations where the Registrar/Joint Registrar are expected to act in the best interest of the society and its members, but in such situations, they have to act bona fide and within the four corners of the statute. In our view, the impugned order will not fall in that category.”

¶311

Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that cancellation of the recruitment of the year 2012 was illegal, as there were various judicial orders, which required the 2012 recruitment to be carried on, and if so carried on, then the eligible candidates were required to be given appointment.

¶312

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012 has not been given effect to. The underage and overage candidates alongwith many other ineligible candidates have been considered in the selection process. Even

¶313

(38 of 63)

¶314

[CW-10496/2018]

¶315

11^th and 12^th Class students were permitted to participate in the selection process.

¶316

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no list of disqualified candidates has been announced, and the simple recruitment has been made without making proper scrutiny.

¶317

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that multiple forms have been filled by the candidates, which enhances their chance of succeeding in the lottery.

¶318

Learned counsel for the petitioners next submitted that the candidates, who were participating in the recruitment of the year 2012, were not given fair chance of participation and essential reservation, like ex-servicemen, and Section 53 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act has not been followed in the present recruitment process.

¶319

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the two children criteria has not been followed, and while making non-adherence to such a criteria, even the ineligible candidates were permitted to participate in the recruitment process, which also runs contrary to law.

¶320

Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that the categories, to which the candidates did not belong, have been given appointment in those categories, and thus, the reserved categories have been exchanged among themselves, which was not permissible in law.

¶321

Learned counsel for the petitioners have further submitted that the women candidates, more than the prescribed reservation, have been granted appointment. Moreover, the

¶322

(39 of 63)

¶323

[CW-10496/2018]

¶324

handicapped persons have not been given recruitment as per their reservation.

¶325

Learned counsel for the petitioners also stated that the General Category candidates are paying more money towards the fee, whereas the reserved category candidates, paying lesser money towards the fee, have been permitted to migrate into the General Category.

¶326

Learned counsel for the petitioners further stated that some of the members of the Selection Committee, so constituted for the present recruitment, was comprised of the relatives of the candidates, who have been selected, thus vitiating the selections at the places concerned.

¶327

Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that double chance have been given to the persons of reserved category in violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and thus, the basic principle of equal opportunity has been jeopardized.

¶328

The next submission made by learned counsel for the petitioners is that the candidates having discrepancies in relation to their name, age, certificate, experience, class and other discrepancies, have also been given appointment, which was also not permissible under the law.

¶329

Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that certain candidates, who were given appointment, their services have been terminated without giving them opportunity of hearing, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice.

¶330

Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the Government of India notification dated 12.03.2014, which provides for giving preference to the persons having experience in

¶331

(40 of 63)

¶332

[CW-10496/2018]

¶333

the work of Safai Karmi, has also not been followed. Thus, the action of the respondents also runs contrary to the said notification dated 12.03.2014.

¶334

Learned counsel for the petitioners thus submitted that if the form of any eligible candidate was not included in the lottery, then he may be permitted to make representation to the respondents and the same may be appropriately considered and decided by the respondents.

¶335

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has carefully heard and refuted the aforesaid submissions and the issues raised therein. The submissions made by learned counsel for the respondents, in refutation of the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and while contesting the present writ petitions, those submissions are also set out in the following paragraphs.

¶336

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the provision of lottery has been incorporated in Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 by an amendment in the year 2014, and hence, once there is a statutory incorporation of the method of lottery for the appointment, then appointments so made, are in accordance with law.

¶337

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench in Akhil Bhartiya Valmiki Samaj Aarakshan Samajik Shodh & Vikas Samiti Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B.Civil Writ Petition NO.13187/2018 decided on 13.07.2018) , whereby the lottery system has been upheld. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under:-

¶338

(41 of 63)

¶339

[CW-10496/2018]

¶340

“Taking into consideration facts of this case, we do not find that method of selection by lottery is illegal. The judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Shri B.P. Nagaraju Gowda (supra) does not apply to the facts of this case.

¶341

Learned counsel for petitioner has raised question about fairness in the system of lottery. It has been submitted that manipulations can be made even in lottery. We have given our serious consideration on the aforesaid issue thus called for the record to find out as to how lottery has been drawn. The record shows that a software was prepared by engaging an independent firm. The aforesaid software was then sent for audit to find out as to whether it is full-proof or not. After getting audit report, further process was undertaken by involving the Information and Technology Department, State of Rajasthan. Thus in the process of lottery, the Municipal Councils were not directly involved, rather, they got the software prepared from an independent firm followed by an audit report and lastly, it involved an independent Department of State of Rajasthan namely, Information and Technology. The petitioner has not brought on record any fact which may question the independence of the system in drawing lottery thus the issue about fairness in drawing lottery system remains for the sake of it.

¶342

Learned counsel for petitioner has even made reference of the previous judgment of this court in the case of Sushila (supra), whereby, an order was passed for making selection on the basis of lottery. The judgment aforesaid was given when fairness in selection by other modes was questioned. To overcome with the difficulty and to have fairness in the selection, the direction to hold selection by evolving method of lottery was given. The respondents, thereafter, adopted the said method for many years. It was

¶343

(42 of 63)

¶344

[CW-10496/2018]

¶345

stopped when a writ petition was filed to question the mode of selection by lottery. This court caused interference for the reason that rules were not providing mode of selection by lottery. The respondents thus made an amendment to continue old system, as was directed earlier by this court in the case of Sushila (supra). In view of the above, the judgment holding recruitment through lottery to be illegal was in given facts and circumstances. At that time, the rule was not providing mode of recruitment by way of lottery.

¶346

In view of the discussion made above, we do not find any ground to cause interference in the amendment made by Notification impugned herein. The writ petition is thus dismissed.”

¶347

Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the migration of the reserved class is an accepted norm of reservation, and since the reservation was to be applied as per the constitutional framework, therefore, the respondents were having no other option, but to prescribe a detailed criteria for adopting a uniform method of applying the reservation, commonly applicable to the candidates.

¶348

Learned counsel for the respondents has shown to this Court the letter dated 29.05.2018, whereby a common criteria has been laid down in relation to the recruitment in question. The relevant portion of the said letter reads as under:-

¶349

“ Øekad % i-1¼x½ ¼ ½ dk@,l,ebZ@,y,lth@18@4557&4787 fnukad%& 29-5-18 1- ftyk dyDVj

¶350

leLrA

¶351

2- vk;qDr@vf/k'kk"kh vf/kdkjh uxj fuxe@ifj"kn@ikfydk

¶352

leLrA

¶353

3- mifuns'kd ¼{ks=h;½

¶354

(43 of 63)

¶355

[CW-10496/2018]

¶356

Lfkkuh; fudk; foHkkx]

¶357

leLr jktLFkkuA

¶358

fo’k;%& lQkbZ deZpkjh HkrhZ gsrq foLr`r fn'kk funsZ'k ckcr~A izlax%& foHkkxh; i= Øekad 4042&4272 fnukad 17-05-2018

¶359

ykVjh ds laca/k esa vko';d fn'kk funsZ'k %&

¶360

loZizFke fudk; dh dqy fjfDr;ksa dk oxZokj foHkktu dj izR;sd

¶361

oxZ ds fy;s miyC/k fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k r; dh tkos blds i'pkr lHkh izkIr vkosnu i=ksa dh oxZokjh NaVuh dh tkosA

¶362

ykVjh fnukad 25 twu ls 29 twu 2018 dks ftyk dyDVj dh

¶363

v/;{krk esa xfBr lfefr }kjk ftyk eq[;ky; ij dEI;wVj ds ek/;e ls fudkyh tkosxhA

¶364

foHkkxh; vkns'k Øekad 1528 fnukad 20-4-2018 ds }kjk

¶365

mifuns'kd ¼{ks=h;½ LFkkuh; fudk; foHkkx ds LFkku ij lacaf/kr eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh dks ykWVjh lfefr esa lnL; ?kksf"kr fd;k x;k FkkA foHkkxh; vkns'k Øekad 789 fnukad 13-4-2018 ds }kjk xfBr yksVjh lfefr izHkkoh jgsxhA vFkkZr lacaf/kr {ks=h; mifuns'kd Hkh lfefr ds lnL; jgsaxsA

¶366

ykVjh gsrq i`Fkd ls lkWQ~Vos;j rS;kj fd;k tk jgk gS ftls “kh?kz

¶367

gh lHkh uxjh; fudk;ksa ,oa lHkh ftyk dyDVlZ dk;kZy;ksa dh lkbZV ij viyksM dj fn;k tkosxkA

¶368

ykVjh oxZokj vk;ksftr dh tkosxhA ftlesa loZizFke ykVjh

¶369

vuwlwfpr tkfr oxZ dh fudkyh tkosxh] blds i'pkr vuqlwfpr tu tkfr blds i'pkr vU; fiNMk oxZ] vfr fiNMk oxZ ,oa vUr esa lkekU; vH;kfFkZ;ksa dh ykVjh fudkyh tkosxhA

¶370

lHkh oxZ dh ykVjh esa loZizFke ifjR;Drk blds i'pkr

¶371

fo/kok ,oa lkekU; fo/kok dh ykVjh fudkyh tkosxhA rRi'pkr~ vU; vkjf{kr Js.kh ds vkosnd ;fn miyC/k gS] rks mudh ykVjh fudkyh tkosxh ,oa vUr esa lkekU; iq:’k gsrq ykVjh ls vkosndksa dk p;u fd;k tkosxkA

¶372

loZizFke ,llh oxZ dh ifjR;Drk blds i”pkr fo/kok oxZ dh

¶373

ykVjh fudkyh tkosxhA ifjR;Drk@fo/kok ds p;u ls “ks’k jgs vkosnu i=ksa dks vuqlwfpr tkfr lkekU; efgyk dh ykVjh esa

¶374

(44 of 63)

¶375

[CW-10496/2018]

¶376

lfEefyr fd;k tkdj vuqlwfpr tkfr lkekU; efgyk dh ykVjh fudkyh tkosxhA rRi'pkr vuqlwfpr tkfr efgyk ds “ks’k jgs vkosnu i=ksa dks vuqlwfpr tkfr ds iq:’k oxZ ds vkosnu i=ksa esa “kkfey fd;k tkdj iq:"k oxZ dh ykVjh fudkyh tkosxhA

¶377

• vuqlwfpr tkfr ifjR;Drk@fo/kok oxZ dh efgykvsa ds “ks"k jgs vkosnu i= lkekU; oxZ dh ifjR;Drk ,oa fo/kok efgykvksa ds vkosnu i=ksa esa “kkfey dj ykWVjh fudkyh tkosxhA vuqlwfpr tkfr dh efgykvksa ds “ks’k jgs vkosnu i=ksa dks lkekU; oxZ dh efgyk ds vkosnu i=ksa esa “kkfey fd;k tkdj lkekU; oxZ dh efgykvksa dh ykWVjh fudkyh tkosxh ,oa lkekU; oxZ dh efgyk dh ykVjh ds “ks’k jgs vkosnu i=ksa dks lkekU; oxZ ds iq:"k ds vkosnu i=ksa esa “kkfey fd;k tkdj ykWVjh fudkyh tkosxhA

¶378

mDr izfØ;k vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tutkfr] vU; fiNMk

¶379

oxZ ,oa vfr fiNMk oxZ ds fy;s dh tkosxhA

¶380

mijksDr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj ykVjh vk;ksftr fd;s tkus gsrq

¶381

vH;FkhZ dk vkosnu i= Øekad ,oa vH;FkhZ dk uke vafdr gksxk rFkk lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ukeksa dh lwph mlh fnol dks ftyk dyDVj ds dk;kZy; ds uksfVl cksMZ ij o lacaf/kr ikfydk ds uksfVl cksMZ ij pLik dh tkosxhA rRi”pkr p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dh fu;ekuqlkj ikfydk }kjk fu;qfDr i= tkjh fd;s tkosaxsA

¶382

vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tu tkfr] vU; fiNMk oxZ ,oa vfr

¶383

fiNMk oxZ ds vkosndksa dh ykVjh loZizFke fudkyh tkosa ,oa ykVjh esa p;fur vH;kfFkZ;ksa dks i`Fkd djrs gwq, lkekU; oxZ dh ykVjh esa vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tu tkfr vU; fiNMk oxZ ,oa vfr fiNMk oxZ ds “ks’k jgs vkosnu i=ksa dks lkekU; oxZ dh ykVjh esa “kkfey fd;k tkosaA

¶384

mnkgj.kkFkZ fdlh uxjh; fudk; esa dqy Lohd`r in 100 gS rks%&

¶385

oxZ	in	izkIr vkosnu	ykVjh ds }kjk p;fur	“ks’k vkosnu i=
,llh	16	200	16	184
,lVh	12	150	12	138
vkschlh	21	100	21	79
,lchlh	1	50	1	69
;ksx	50	500	50	450
lkekU;	50	100	ykVjh gsrq vkosnu ¼100+450½	550

¶386

(45 of 63) [CW-10496/2018]

¶387

mdrkuqlkj loZizFke vuqlwfpr tkfr] vuqlwfpr tu tkfr] vU; fiNMk oxZ ,oa vfr fiNMk oxZ dh ykVjh muds oxZokj vkosnuksa esa ls fudkyh tkos] rRi'pkr vkjf{kr oxZ ds “ks’k jgs vkosnu ,oa lkekU; oxZ ds vkosnu dqy 550 esa ls lkekU; oxZ ds fy, ykVjh fudkyh tkosA

¶388

lQkbZ dfeZdksa dh HkrhZ ds fy;s foHkkx }kjk ,d lkWQVos;j rS;kj djok;k x;k gS] ftlesa fudk;okj ykWfxu vkbMh@ikloMZ lacaf/kr fudk; dks miyC/kZ djk;k tk jgk gS] ftldh lwpuk bZ&esy ds ek/;e ls vkidks “kh?kz izkIr gksxhA ykWfxu ds ek/;e ls lacaf/kr fudk; }kjk fudk; esa izkir vkosnu i=ksa dk bUnzkt lkWQVos;j ij fd;k tkuk gSA vkosnuksa dh la[;k vf/kd gksus ij fudk; ,d gh ykWfxu vkbZMh ds ek/;e ls ,d ls vf/kd dEI;wVjksa }kjk lkWQ~Vos;j ij vkosnu i=ksa dk bUnzkt dj ldsaxsA

¶389

fudk; esa izkIr leLr vkosnu i=ksa dk lkW~QVos;j ij lkr fnol esa bUnzkt fd;k tkuk lqfuf”pr djsaA

¶390

tkap ds nkSjku tks vkosnu ij fujLr ;ksX; ik;s tk;s rks mUgsa lkW~QVos;j ij fjekdZ ds lkFk fujLr dk bUnzkt fudk; }kjk fd;k tkosxkA

¶391

lkWQVos;j ij vkosnuksa dh tkap ds i'pkr ykVjh izfØ;k lkW~QVos;j ds ek/;e ls dh tkosxhA ftlds fy;s foLr`r fn'kk funsZ'k vyx ls tkjh fd;s tkosaxsA

¶392

,lMh@& ¼iou vjksMk½ funs'kd ,oa la;qDr lfpo“

¶393

Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that while following Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012, the reservation has been specified and the method of recruitment was already made clear in the advertisement itself, and therefore, the facts of the case do not reflect changing the rules of the game during the exercise of the selection process, but subsequent circular merely is an explanatory and executory guidelines, which have been issued by the Government to ensure a uniform and transparent modus operandi to implement the reservation in question.

¶394

(46 of 63)

¶395

[CW-10496/2018]

¶396

Regarding the applicability of reservation for OBC Category in the TSP Area, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the circular/notification dated 04.07.2016, whereby a uniform decision has been taken by the State of Rajasthan to adhere to the TSP Special Reservations, which is 45% for ST, 5% for SC and 50% for other TSP General, except for in the State Services. Learned counsel for the respondents therefore, states that since the recruitment in question is not a State Service, therefore, a uniform adherence to the said circular/notification dated 04.07.2016, for applicability of the TSP Reservation, has been made and adhered to. Such circular/notification has been issued under the powers under Article 244(1) of the Constitution of India by the Governor.

¶397

Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 is a broad proposition, wherein, by virtue of the amendment made vide notification dated 23.01.2014, after the existing expression “experience” and before the existing expression “or on”, the expression “/lottery system amongst the eligible candidates” has been inserted as a modus operandi to conduct the selection process, and thus, it supports the case of the respondents to have a uniform method of lottery to conduct the selection process for the post of Safai Karamchari.

¶398

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the checking and verification of large number of forms is not possible, and therefore, in all recruitments being held in the State and its Organs, the verification and checking of the forms is done at the last stage, after the select list is prepared, and therefore, it enables the authorities to invest lesser energies in making the verification and checking of the forms. A uniform policy of

¶399

(47 of 63)

¶400

[CW-10496/2018]

¶401

employment in the State is that for all recruitments, the verification and checking of the forms is done at the end of the selection process to enable the authorities to disqualify the persons, who are selected or being ineligible, and which are much less in number, than the persons, who have filled the forms, which are in huge number.

¶402

Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that the vacancies of the year 2012 being carried forward to 2018 was a procedure, which was necessary in light of the amendment made in the Rules of 2012, which was given effect to by way of notifications dated 23.01.2014 and 11.04.2018, by which “lottery” was included in Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012, and such amendment required the vacancies of the year 2012 to be filled as per the current laws, after being advertised. However, learned counsel for the respondents assures this Court that no prejudice has been caused to the candidates, who were eligible in 2012, as a complete opportunity has been given by the respondents to them to have a free and fair participation in the recruitment process.

¶403

Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2008) 3 SCC 724 , relevant para 14 of which reads as under:-

¶404

“ 14. The posts were again advertised in 1998 and the selection has already been undertaken, therefore, the earlier selection pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 1996 is over and whatever posts which have been left over and could not be filled up after fresh selection process are undertaken. Whatever posts were left over will automatically be included in the 1998 selection. It will be futile exercise to constitute a

¶405

(48 of 63)

¶406

[CW-10496/2018]

¶407

committee headed by the Chief Secretary to examine as to whether vacancies of teacher Grade III pursuant to Advertisement No.1 of 1996 still exist and whether after the judgment of the learned Single Judge any appointment on the post of teacher Grade III was given by relaxing the educational qualification under Rule 296”

¶408

Learned counsel for the respondents has thus made out a case that such carrying forward of the vacancies was the prerogative of the State and was in the larger interest of conducting a transparent, fair and lawful recruitment process.

¶409

Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the Hon’ble Courts, on various occasions, have only given protection to the candidates, eligible to be appointed, to be considered for the appointment in the recruitment against the vacancies of 2012, and all those judgments are being adhered to, as those persons have been given full opportunity, including age relaxation and other relaxations, by giving them a transparent and fair opportunity to participate in such selection process of 2018, where the posts of 2012 recruitment have been carried forward.

¶410

Learned counsel for the respondents has also submitted that no prejudice shall be caused to the petitioners, who would have been participating in the recruitment process against the vacancies of the year 2012, as they have been given complete opportunity to participate against such vacancies as well as new vacancies of 2018.

¶411

Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the proposition of comparative merit and higher merits for migration from one reserved class to General Category

¶412

(49 of 63)

¶413

[CW-10496/2018]

¶414

is a universal proposition; but since the comparative merit in the present recruitment was not possible and the lottery system, as a modus operandi to conduct the selection process, has been applied, in accordance with Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 as well as the Hon’ble Division Bench judgment in Akhil Bhartiya Valmiki Samaj Aarakshan Samajik Shodh & Vikas Samiti (supra).

¶415

The comparative merit could not have been determined; but at the same time, the reservation was required to be implemented, and therefore, a common and uniform procedure was adopted by the respondents, by which the left over reserved classes, after getting exhausted in their respective categories, were given opportunity to participate in the General Category, which is always an open category, and all the classes have equal rights to participate in the said open category, as per the settled law.

¶416

Learned counsel for the respondents has further stated that there is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the reasonable classification is permitted in law, and such reasonable classification is only being adhered to by the respondents by giving opportunity to the reserved classes in their respective category, and thereafter, permitting them to equally participate in the General Category, which is the norm in all the selection processes, while giving effect to the reservation policy in vogue, in the present perspective in the State vacancies.

¶417

Learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that the age relaxation to the OBC Category could not be given as Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012, which is pertaining to the age relaxation, does not provide age relaxation to the OBC Category candidates.

¶418

(50 of 63)

¶419

[CW-10496/2018]

¶420

Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012 is reproduced hereinbelow, for ready reference:-

¶421

“ 6. Eligibility and age.- (1) Persons having two years’ working experience of Safai in any Municipality of the State of Rajasthan shall be eligible for the post. The widow and divorcee woman may be given preference.

¶422

(2) For direct recruitment a candidate must have attained age of 18 years and must not have attained the age of 35 years on the last date of submission of the application for direct recruitment:

¶423

Provided that the candidates of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe shall be given five years age relaxation in the upper age limit:

¶424

Provided further that the upper age limit for Exserviceman candidate shall be fifty years.”

¶425

Learned counsel for the respondents also states that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012 has been adhered to, as only those candidates who have sought benefit in age and in fee have been given opportunity to migrate in the General Category.

¶426

Learned counsel for the respondents further states that as far as the discrepancies of underage, overage, third child, false affidavits, false experience and all other ineligibilities are concerned, the respondents are prepared to consider the respective representation of the parties concerned, which shall be decided by passing a speaking order, strictly in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the respondents also states that the multiple applicants shall also be disqualified, even if they got selected in one of the applications.

¶427

Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that the due reservation of Ex-servicemen, handicapped and women

¶428

(51 of 63)

¶429

[CW-10496/2018]

¶430

categories alongwith the horizontal reservation have been strictly adopted, in accordance with law. However, any representation, if given regarding non-applicability of the reservation of handicapped persons or ex-servicemen, the same shall also be considered and decided by passing a speaking order strictly in accordance with law.

¶431

Learned counsel for the respondents also stated that the redressal mechanism provided in Section 53 of the Rajasthan Municipalities Act would not apply in this case, because the recruitments are being conducted by the respondents strictly in accordance with law, while adopting a uniform procedure. However, all the grievances, except for, which are raised here in these cases, the same shall be considered, if raised before the respondents, by passing a speaking order strictly in accordance with law.

¶432

Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as far as the preferential appointment is concerned, the same cannot be accepted in this case, as the lottery was opened by standard computer software, and thus, no manual role was there in opening of the lottery, as per the uniform criteria adopted all over the Rajasthan, and hence, any person being relative of any other person would not make any impact, as there was no discretion available on the part of the selectors, as the appointments were made strictly on the basis of computerized lottery system.

¶433

Learned counsel for the respondents further states that if any wrongful candidate has been given appointment, then such candidate shall be duly excluded from the appointments.

¶434

(52 of 63)

¶435

[CW-10496/2018]

¶436

Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the SBC Category was included in the OBC Category, and in case any difficulty arises to the SBC Category candidates, they may file representation before the respondents, which shall be considered and decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order strictly in accordance with law.

¶437

Learned counsel for the respondents also stated that the equal opportunity concept has been adhered to and all the candidates have been given equal opportunity while adhering to the reservation laws in currency.

¶438

Regarding illegal termination, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it was a condition stipulated in the form itself, that if any person is not found eligible or has given wrong information or has violated any condition of the form or any other criteria or condition uniformly adopted by the respondents, then he/she shall be liable to be ousted from the service.

¶439

Learned counsel for the respondents further states that the notifications of the Government of India does not carry any statutory binding, and thus, they are merely persuasive in nature, and that, the State has its own legislation for giving effect to the recruitment in question. However, learned counsel for the respondents assures this Court that the experience would automatically get preference by the system, which has been adopted, as the maximum number of applications have been received from the persons, who hold appropriate experience in the tasks to be performed.

¶440

Learned counsel for the respondents also states that Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 has been adhered to, as a Selection Committee was constituted, in which the Chief Executive Officer of

¶441

(53 of 63)

¶442

[CW-10496/2018]

¶443

the concerned Local Body was given a pivotal role. The proper selection committee was constituted vide order dated 13.04.2018, which reads as under:-

¶444

”Øekad % i-1¼x½ ¼ ½ dk@,l,ebZ@,y,lth@18@789 fnukad%& 13-4-18 vkns'k

¶445

ekuuh; eq[;ea=h dh ctV ?kks"k.kk 2018&* 19 dh vuqikyuk esa lQkbZ deZpkjh ds fjDr inksa ds fo:) izkIr vkosnu i=ksa esa ls ik= vH;kfFkZ;ksa dk ykVjh ds ek/;e ls p;u djus gsrq ftyk dyDVj dh v/;{krk esa fuEukuqlkj ,d lfefr dk xBu fd;k tkrk gSA mDr lfefr }kjk fnukad 25 o 26 twu 2018 dks ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ftyk eq[;ky; ij ykVjh fudkyh tkosxhA

¶446

01- ftyk dyDVj v/;{k 02- mi funs'kd ¼{ks=h;½ Lfkkuh; fudk; foHkkx lnL; lfpo 03- v/;{k ¼lacaf/kr uxj ikfydk½ lnL; lnL; 04- eq[; uxj ikfydk vf/kdkjh ¼lacaf/kr½ 05- jkT; lQkbZ deZpkjh vk;ksx dk euksuhr lnL; lnL;

¶447

,lMh@& ¼iou vjksMk½ funs'kd ,oa la;qDr lfpo“

¶448

Learned counsel for the respondents further states that apart from giving a pivotal role to the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Local Body, necessary advertisement was made at the State level, so as to maintain uniformity of conditions in the recruitment throughout the State, as individual Local Bodies, if would have made their own criteria, then it would have created serious anomalies in the recruitment process.

¶449

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as perusing the record of the case, alongwith the precedent laws cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in Akhil Bhartiya

¶450

Valmiki Samaj Aarakshan Samajik Shodh & Vikas Samiti

¶451

(supra) has completely dealt with the amendment made in Rule 9

¶452

(54 of 63)

¶453

[CW-10496/2018]

¶454

of the Rules of 2012 vide notification dated 23.01.2014, whereby a provision of lottery was included as a modus operandi of direct recruitment on the post of Safai Karmachari. The Hon’ble Division Bench, in the said case, has examined the validity of such rule in light of the advertisement in question i.e. 13.4.2018, whereby the posts of Safai Karamchari are sought to be filled all over the Rajasthan in various Local Bodies.

¶455

The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the aforementioned precedent law has taken care of every aspect of the recruitment process being conducted, while adopting the lottery system, including the apprehensions of the parties in relation to unfair means being resorted to, while adopting the process of lottery, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the issue, the Hon’ble Division Bench has held that the selection on the basis of lottery system is lawful, and thus, Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 is in accordance with law.

¶456

This Court holds that the migration of reserved category into General Category is a settled phenomenon of law, and the reservation policy in vogue, as per law, requires that while the reserved categories are given a chance to avail their reservations, but by such availing of chance, the reserved categories are not precluded from migrating into the General Category, which in fact, is a category open for all on need to have all classes getting equal opportunity to compete for.

¶457

Thus, this Court holds that the opportunity to the candidates for the post of Safai Karamchari, who belonged to the reserved categories, to avail the direct recruitment, in the General Category, is their lawful right, as per the reservation laws.

¶458

(55 of 63)

¶459

[CW-10496/2018]

¶460

The comparative merit being not there, does not permit the respondents to shirk away from implementing the reservation, which has a constitutional and legislative mandate, and therefore, even when the lottery system is being adopted, then also Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012 is subject to the application of reservation in the direct recruitment. It will defeat the very purpose of the constitutional mandate, if the direct recruitment, by any means, seeks to exclude the reservation, which has a constitutional backing. The respondents were therefore, left with no other option, but to operate the reservation, for which they have laid down a uniform and transparent criteria, including giving examples of how it shall operate vide their letter dated 29.05.2018.

¶461

The aforementioned criteria is applicable across the board in the complete recruitment for all the candidates, and is thus, carrying a level of transparency and confidence, that such a criteria should carry. The criteria of giving lottery preference to the reserved classes, and thereafter, permitting the rest of the reserved classes, who do not get appointment in the General Category, is a fair criteria. By the said criteria, the reservation of SC/ST and OBC is being fairly implemented, as those respective classes are given appointment by lottery in their respective classes; whereas their participation and inclusion in the General Category, where they have a broad right, would be in accordance with the law of reservation.

¶462

There is no question of violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as the Doctrine of Reasonable Classification has been developed by the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as various other legislations, by

¶463

(56 of 63)

¶464

[CW-10496/2018]

¶465

which the classification has to be done, so as to treat the unequals as equals, by making a classification.

¶466

The mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in fact required the respondents to carry out and implement the reservation in the direct recruitment, which has been done by them, by prescribing a transparent and uniform criteria in a satisfactory manner, whereby the reserved classes have been given complete opportunity to participate in their respective categories as well as in the General Category, as they are given in all other recruitments.

¶467

This Court also finds that the checking and verification of the forms at the threshold was not possible, as the employment exercise at the initial stage, has a humongous number of applicants, and to scrutinize them, would be waste of energy, whereas to scrutinize the selected candidates, who are very limited in number, is an easy proposition, and therefore, the scrutiny and verification, after the select list is prepared, is a legally and practically accepted solution, which is being conducted by the State of Rajasthan, and all other employment agencies in different recruitments, and thus, being an acceptable norm, the same cannot be deviated from on any count.

¶468

Moreover, once the ineligible candidates are excluded from the recruitment at the stage of selection itself, then no prejudice shall be caused to any candidate, who would have a right to participate in the selection process, as a lawful candidate. 78. This Court also finds that the waiting list could not have been made, as in the lottery system, the definite number of posts were required to be filled, and any kind of waiting list would have

¶469

(57 of 63)

¶470

[CW-10496/2018]

¶471

been difficult to operate, in light of non-availability of the comparative merit.

¶472

It would be practically impossible for the respondents to have a waiting list, as, which of the waiting list would be given preference in the order of merit or in the order of chronology, would be very difficult to settle, in case of not having the comparative merit. Thus, the respondents shall, after having filled the seats from the selected candidates by way of lottery, shall be left with the option of making a fresh lottery for the available vacant posts, which shall not create any discrepancy or disharmony amongst the candidates so selected, as due to lack of the comparative merit, every candidate, who stands selected by way of lottery, is at the same pedestal, and making any chronology amongst them, would not be possible. 80. This Court also holds that cancellation of the 2012 recruitment and carrying forward of the vacancies thereof to 2018 is a prerogative of the State, as the precedent law, after examination, clearly reflects that the State has the prerogative to prescribe a uniform and transparent criteria of carrying forward the vacancies from one advertisement to another advertisement, and in this case, this Court finds that once the amendments in the Rules of 2012 were made vide notifications dated 23.01.2014 and 11.04.2018, then the respondents, if would have carried out the recruitment, while implementing the unamended law, would be detrimental to the larger interest of justice. Thus, the new Rule, which could have been adopted only prospectively, was rightly applied on the vacancies brought forward by the advertisement of 2018.

¶473

(58 of 63)

¶474

[CW-10496/2018]

¶475

Moreover, this Court has seen that no prejudice has been caused to the vacancies of the year 2012, as the candidates participating in 2012 employment exercise, have been given all relaxations, so that they can compete alongwith all other similarly situated candidates in a free and transparent manner to have their chance of recruitment.

¶476

This Court also holds that the age relaxation to the OBC candidates cannot be provided, as the same is not stipulated in Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012, as quoted above, which provides age relaxation only for SC/ST candidates, and the respondents could not have acted beyond the Rules, which are a legislative exercise.

¶477

This Court also holds that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012 has been followed by the respondents, as they have not permitted any migration of the reserved category to the General Category, particularly of those, who have availed the benefit on merits, as in this exercise, merit has no role to play, and it is only the lottery, which has been made a modus operandi for conducting the recruitment process.

¶478

As far as the issues pertaining to overage, underage, 11^th Class and 12^th Class students and all other issues of persons not being permitted to fill up the form even when they were ineligible and other discrepancies are concerned, this Court leaves it open for the petitioners to make representation before the respondents, and this Court directs that the representation of each of the petitioner shall be decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order, after constituting a proper Redressal Committee, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶479

(59 of 63)

¶480

[CW-10496/2018]

¶481

This Court also holds that if any candidate(s), who was not eligible or was entitled to be excluded from the process of recruitment, has been included, then their services shall be terminated, after giving them opportunity of hearing. However, the proposition pertaining to the services of the candidates, who have been terminated, after being given appointment, without giving them proper opportunity of hearing, cannot be accepted, as being contrary to the basic law of audi alteram partem and the settled parameters of the natural justice, which require the opportunity of hearing to be given, once appointment has been accorded. It would have been a different case, if the respondents would not have selected those candidates, if they were ineligible, and in that event, the opportunity of hearing was not required to be given; but once the appointment has been given and such appointments create a right in favour of the appointees, then such appointment needs to be protected to the extent and the respondents are directed that such terminations will not be given effect to, until and unless fresh orders are passed by the respondents, while making necessary application of mind, after giving the appointees proper opportunity of hearing.

¶482

The application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the selected candidates is accepted, for the reasons mentioned therein. Learned counsel for the selected candidates has merely reiterated the arguments, which have been made on behalf of the respondents, and thus, need not be dealt with separately.

¶483

The members of the Selection Committee being the relatives of the selected candidates, does not cut ice with this Court, as the lottery has been conducted by a standard computer

¶484

(60 of 63)

¶485

[CW-10496/2018]

¶486

software, where no discretion was available with the Selection Committee or the relevant candidate(s) at the helm of the affairs, and thus, such selection cannot be questioned on this ground.

¶487

The Government of India notifications have a persuasive value, but the State Legislation, particularly Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012, shall hold the field, and therefore, in light of the recruitment being held in accordance with the Rules of 2012 and the Act of 2009, the argument pertaining to non-adherence to the Government of India notifications is not accepted by this Court.

¶488

The third child controversy was previously adjudicated by this Hon’ble Court in the precedent law laid down in Smt.Indira Devi Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2015 decided on 05.11.2015) , whereby the candidates having third child were allowed to be recruited; but thereafter, the respondents have amended the Rules, and the disqualification has now found place in the Rules itself, and therefore, the dimensions of the controversy have changed, and in light of such Rule, until and unless such Rule is interfered with by the competent court, the same shall have to be adhered to, and the respondents shall be free to disqualify the candidates on the basis of such Rules, as brought in by way of the amendment vide notification dated 11.04.2018, whereby the disqualifications for appointment have been clarified under Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012.

¶489

Regarding the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Local Bodies is required to carry out the advertisement and prescribe the criteria for the present recruitment, this Court finds that the

¶490

(61 of 63)

¶491

[CW-10496/2018]

¶492

averments made by learned counsel for the respondents are justified, as the Committee so constituted comprised of the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Local Body as well, as is discernible from the aforequoted order dated 13.04.2018, and thus, once the State level advertisement has been made and the State level criteria has been prescribed, then giving the Local Bodies the freedom to prescribe their own criteria, would have created a havoc with the recruitment, and the basic concept of uniformity, transparency and lawful conduct of the recruitment would have suffered.

¶493

This Court also finds that in the advertisement itself, it was laid down that the Chief Executive Officers of the 184 Local Bodies were inviting applications on behalf of the respective Local Body, for which the State was a communicative and cohesive recruting agency.

¶494

Before parting with this judgment, this Court makes it clear that any issue other than the issues dealt with by this Court in this judgment, which remains open, shall be represented by the petitioners to the respondents, and the respondents shall decide all those factual and legal issues by passing a respective speaking order in the cases of the petitioners, after giving them proper opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with law, as it is not possible for this Court to go into individual facts of individual petitioner in such exercise, and therefore, this Court directs the respondents to pass lawful and speaking orders in all those matters.

¶495

It is further made clear that the petitioners, whose issues have not been dealt with by this Court in this judgment, shall have the liberty to approach this Court again, after the

¶496

(62 of 63)

¶497

[CW-10496/2018]

¶498

respective representations are decided by the respondents, if so advised.

¶499

Such issues shall be decided by the respondents through a proper Redressal Committee to be constituted by the respondents themselves, in pursuance of aforesaid direction contained in this judgment, at the appropriate level, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

¶500

The grievances of the candidates having extraordinary sports skills were also taken up by this Court, and after hearing learned counsel for the parties on the said issue, this Court finds that since they are dependent upon the settled parameters of giving preference to the sports persons, this Court directs that the representations of such sports persons shall be decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order, while giving them proper opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. Further, while making such consideration, the criteria for sports persons, as mentioned in such representations, shall also be duly dealt with and considered by the respondents, strictly in accordance with law.

¶501

The complete selection exercise, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018, in larger public interest, shall be completed by the respondents in an expeditious manner, subject to giving effect to the directions given by this Court in these matters.

¶502

All these writ petitions arising out of recruitment process of Safai Karamchari in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018, stand disposed of, as per the above

¶503

(63 of 63)

¶504

[CW-10496/2018]

¶505

observations and directions. However, it is made clear that any issue, which has been pleaded, but not decided by this judgment, shall require the petitioners to file representation before the respondents, which shall be decided by the respondents by passing a respective speaking order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶506

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶507

Skant/-

Jyoti Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jyoti Dhariwal v. State of Rajasthan

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

Kishna Automobile Vs the Union of India and Anr.

Jitendra Kumar Bhatt Vs State of Rajasthan

Maan Mahendra Singh Vs Kalyan Singh and Ors.

Smt. Vimla and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

State and Anr. Vs Shri Jaidev and Anr.

Employees State Insurance Corporation, Vs Nirmal Kumar Vishnoi