Allowed

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Oct 2018CW/1538/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed three connected writ petitions regarding recruitment for Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services. The court held that 14 unfilled vacancies reserved for departmental candidates in the 2012 exam must be carried forward to the 2016 exam per statutory rules. It quashed the recruitment result issued without these vacancies and directed redraw.

What did the court decide?

The writ applications were allowed; the impugned result dated 17.10.2017 was quashed, and respondents directed to redraw the result including the 14 unfilled vacancies for ministerial employees.

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs State of Raj and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

(1 of 13)

¶2

[CW-19170/2017]

¶3

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

S.B. Civil Writs No. 19170/2017

¶5

Jitendra Singh Rathor S/o Laxman Singh Rathor, R/o V And P Damri, District Dungarpur Raj.

¶6

Ranu Singh S/o Ashu Singh, R/o 5 B, Hanwant Colony, Rai Ka Bag, Jodhpur Raj.

¶7

----Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶10

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Rajasthan.

¶11

The Commissioner, Department Of Excise, Govt. Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniyawla, Panchwati, Udaipur.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

Connected With

¶14

S.B. Civil Writs No. 9596/2017

¶15

Prem Narayan Sharma S/o Shrihari Om Sharma, R/o Gram Gadh, Post Binjari, Tehsil Raini, District Alwar Rajasthan Pincode - 301 408.

¶16

Ajay Kumar Sharma S/o Shrimahendra Prasad Sharma, R/o Via Post Bhopur, Tehsil Toda Bhim, District Karauli, Rajasthan

¶17

Harish Kumar Sharma S/o Late Shrimangal Chand Sharma, R/o. House No. 94, Radhagovind Colony, Sikar Road, Deharkabalaji, Jaipur.

¶18

----Petitioners

¶19

Versus

¶20

State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶21

Principal Secretary Finance, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶22

Commissioner, Department Of Excise, Vittabhawan, Janpath, Jaipur.

¶23

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its

(2 of 13)

[CW-19170/2017]

Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writs No. 1538/2018

¶29

Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Sharma, R/o Vandp Lisadiya, Tehsil Shrimadhopur, District Sikar Raj.

¶30

----Petitioner

¶31

Versus

¶32

The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel And Administrative, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶33

The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Rajasthan

¶34

The Commissioner, Department Of Excise, Govt. Of Rajasthan, 2, Gumaniyawla, Panchwati, Udaipur.

¶35

----Respondents

¶36

For Petitioner(s)

¶37

: Mr. Vigyan Shah, Mr. Banwari Sharma, Mr. Shobhit Tiwari

¶38

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anand Sharma for Dr. Abhinav Sharma, AAG, Mr. Nikhil Simlote, Mr. M.F. Baig, Mr. Ashish Sharma

¶39

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

¶40

Order

¶41

01/10/2018

¶42

Above noted three writ applications raise common questions of facts and law, and therefore, have been taken up for final adjudication, at this stage, by this common order, as was insisted upon by the counsel for the State-respondents, and consented to by the counsel for the petitioners.

¶43

Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short, ‘RPSC’), conducted Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination-2012, in pursuance of advertisement

¶44

(3 of 13)

¶45

[CW-19170/2017]

¶46

dated 6^th February 2012, for various posts. The result was declared on 17^th July, 2015. And yet, the respondents did not carry forward the unfilled 14 vacancies of the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services of the Recruitment Examination of 2012, to the vacancies of 2016 Examination, in an illegal and arbitrary manner contrary to the mandate of Rule 6 of the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services (General Branch), Rules, 1974 (for short, ‘Rules of 1974’); is the cause of grievance. Accordingly, the instant batch of writ applications, has been instituted with a prayer for addition of 14 vacancies of the Departmental Candidates for Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services in terms of recruitment advertisement dated 28^th April, 2016; wherein the petitioners were successful with a further prayer of consequential benefits so as to quash the response/communications dated 18^th and 23^rd May, 2017 (In Writ Petition No. 9596/2017).

¶47

Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts are that the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement dated 6^th February, 2012, for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination-2012, inviting applications from eligible candidates as per Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination), Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1999’). The advertisement also contemplated for determination of the latest position of vacancies reserved for Departmental Candidates from the concerned Department before declaration of result of the Preliminary Examination and information to the candidates accordingly. It is pleaded case of the petitioners that 14 posts were earmarked for Departmental Candidates in Rajasthan

¶48

(4 of 13)

¶49

[CW-19170/2017]

¶50

Subordinate Excise Services out of 100 advertised vacancies, according to horizontal reservation. The result for Examination of 2012, was declared on 17^th July, 2015, and only one Departmental Candidate was selected of Rajasthan Subordinate Cooperative Services. However, 14 vacancies of Subordinate Excise Services remained unfilled for non-availability of successful Departmental Candidates.

¶51

Learned counsel for the petitioners vociferously argued that in terms of mandate of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1974, 12.5% of the posts of Excise Inspector Gr.II, are required to be filled in by Direct recruitment. Further, these are reserved vacancies and are to be filled up from amongst the Ministerial Staff holding a post in the cadre substantively. Learned counsel further added that 12.5% vacancies reserved for Departmental Candidates, if remained unfilled, are required to be carried forward only to the next recruitment year. Hence, the 14 vacancies of Rajasthan Excise Sub-Ordinate Services are required to be carried forward to the subsequent recruitment year of Examination of 2016.

¶52

Respondent-RPSC issued advertisement on 24^th June, 2013, for Rajasthan State and Subordinate Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination-2013, indicating 490 vacancies for Subordinate Services and 13 vacancies as of Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services.

¶53

According to bifurcation of Subordinate Services in Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services out of 13 vacancies, only one vacancy

¶54

(5 of 13)

¶55

[CW-19170/2017]

¶56

was reserved for Departmental Candidate. Since the result for Examination of 2012, was declared on 17^th July, 2015, thus to carry forward the vacancies of the Examination of 2012 was not feasable in the Rajasthan Civil Services Competitive Examination2013. Learned counsel for petitioners further stated that the final result for RAS & RTS Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination 2013 was declared on 6^th December, 2016 but prior to it the respondents issued advertisement for RAS & RTS Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination 2016 on dated 28^th April, 2016 and corrigendum advertisement dated 22nd June, 2017 wherein only 02 vacancies were reserved for departmental candidates against 19 posts so advertised.

¶57

The allotment for the vacancies of the Examination of 2012 was done on the date of 11.02.2016 and the requisition was sent to the RPSC by the State Government on 23rd December, 2015 for the RAS Exam 2016 while the advertisement for RAS Exam 2016 was issued on the date of 28^th April, 2016. Thus, the respondents had ample time to carry forward the vacancies so reserved for the departmental candidates / ministerial employees which remained unfilled from the RAS Combined Competitive Examination 2012 and RAS Combined Competitive Examination 2013.

¶58

Referring to Note No.1, of the advertisement dated 28^th April, 2016, learned counsel for the petitioners also pointed out that there is a specific stipulation to the effect that the detailed bifurcation of vacancies shall be published by the respondentCommission at the appropriate time after it is obtained from the

¶59

(6 of 13)

¶60

[CW-19170/2017]

¶61

respective departments. According to the petitioners, result of Examination of 2012, was declared on 17^th July, 2015, and the details, including bifurcation of vacancies for the Examination of 2016, was published on 22^nd June, 2017, still the respondents have not included the unfilled vacancies of Departmental Candidates of the year 2012 Examination, in the Examination of 2016; which is contrary to the mandate of Rule 6 of the Rules of 1974. Hence, it is urged that the respondent-RPSC, ought to have carried forward the 14 unfilled vacancies of recruitment of 2012, to the recruitment of 2016.

¶62

It is contended that the petitioners appeared in the Preliminary and Mains Examination for the RAS & RTS Direct Recruitment Competitive Examination 2016 and were even called upon for interview by the respondent-RPSC for appointment on Rajasthan Excise Sub-ordinate Services. Moreover, it is not disputed that respondent-RPSC on 17^th July, 2017, declared the result of Rajasthan Civil Services Competitive Examination 2016, wherein the petitioners have been declared successful assigning their merit position. Furthermore, the petitioners made representation dated 27.09.2017 to the respondents as well, vacancies so reserved for the departmental candidates / ministerial employees of RAS Exam 2012 in RAS Exam 2016 but to no avail. And petitioner served a notice of justice dated 05.10.2017 upon the respondents but that as well to no avail.

¶63

Per contra: counsel for respondent responded to the above averments that in the RAS Examination-2012, 14 vacancies were shown to be reserved for the departmental candidates/ministerial

¶64

(7 of 13)

¶65

[CW-19170/2017]

¶66

employees of Excise Department, but no candidate was selected for the post, therefore, as per Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Subordinate (General Branch) Rules, 1974, the unfilled vacancies were to be carried forward to the succeeding year. The allotment for the vacancies of RAS Examination-2012, was made on dated 11^th February, 2016, while the requisition was sent to RPSC for RAS Examination-2013, on 2^nd January, 2013. And for RAS Examination-2016, it was sent on 23^rd December, 2015. Thus, the said 14 vacancies to be carried forward, were not carried forward for the RAS Examination-2013 and RAS Examination-2016.

¶67

The counsel, appearing on behalf of the counsel representing the respondents, further made an assertion that the position of vacancies from all departments for the year 2012, could not be ascertained until final service allocation for the year 2012 batch was not done. And that final service allocation for RAS (State Service) of 2012 batch was made on 10^th November, 2015. And for RAS (Subordinate Service) for the year 2012 batch, was made on dated 11^th February, 2016, whereas the final service allocation for the year 2012 batch, was made by Excise Department on 27^th May, 2016. Thus, the vacancies of the year 2012 batch, which were left over; could not be determined before the next financial year i.e. 1^st April, 2017.

¶68

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the relevant materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar.

¶69

(8 of 13)

¶70

[CW-19170/2017]

¶71

In view of the conspicuous facts of the matters at hand as noted hereinabove; indisputably, the respondent-RPSC conducted the RAS and RTS combined Examination-2012, wherein 289 vacancies were advertised for State Services and 817 vacancies for Subordinate Services. Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rajasthan Subordinate (General Branch) Rules, 1974 contemplates that 12.5% of the post of Grade-II, to be filled in by recruitment shall be reserved and are required to be filled in from amongst the ministerial staff holding a post in the cadre substantively subject to they being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under the Rules of 1974. If the reserved seats as aforesaid are not filled, then the reserved vacancies shall be carried forward to the next succeeding year. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1974, reads thus:

¶72

Methods of Recruitment:- (1) Recruitment to the service after the commencement of these rules shall be made by the following methods in the proportion indicated in column 3 of the Schedule:-

¶73

(a) direct recruitment in accordance with Part IV of these rules. Provided that 12.5% of the posts of Inspector Grade II to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be reserved for being filled in from amongst the Ministerial Staff holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under these rules. The reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.

¶74

Provided that the post of excise Guards shall be filled 100% by direct recruitment from amongs the Class-IV Employees holding the post substantively in the Excise Department.

¶75

(b) Promotion in accordance with Part V of these rules:

¶76

Provided that:-

¶77

(i) If the Appointing Authority is satisfied, in consultation with the Commission where necessary, that suitable persons

¶78

(9 of 13)

¶79

[CW-19170/2017]

¶80

are not available for appointment by the method of recruitment in a particular year, appointment by the other method in relaxations of the prescribed proportion, may be made in the same manner as specified in these rules;

¶81

(ii) nothing in these rules shall preclude the Appointing Authority from appointing officers who were immediately before 1-11-1956 in the employment of per-reorganisation State of Ajmer, Bombay and Madhya Bharat to suitable posts in the Schedule in accordance with the directions governing the integration of their services;

¶82

(iii) the persons who were appointed to the posts included in the Schedule in ad hoc/officiating/temporary basis before 1- 1-1972 and were working as such on the date these rules come into force shall be screened and recommended by a Committee referred to in rule 24 for adjusting their suitability on the posts held provided that they possess the academic qualifications prescribed in these rules either for direct recruitment or promotion or the prescribed qualifications on the basis of which the persons were selected for ad hoc/Officiating/temporary appointment:

¶83

(a) direct recruitment in accordance with part 10 of these rules. Provided that 12.5% of the posts of Inspector Grade II to be filled in by direct recruitment shall be Staff holding a post in the cadre substantively, subject to their being found otherwise eligible for such recruitment under these rules. The reservation shall be carried forward only to the next succeeding year.

¶84

Provided that the post of excise Guards shall be filled 100% by direct recruitment from amongs the Class-IV Employees holding the post substantively in the Excise Department.

¶85

(b) Promotion in accordance with Part V of these rules:

¶86

Provided that:

¶87

(i) If the Appointing Authority is satisfied, in consultation with the commission where necessary, that suitable persons are not available for appointment by the method of recruitment in a particular year appointment by the other method in relaxations of the prescribed proportion, may be made in the same manner as specified in these rules:

¶88

(ii) Nothing in these rules shall preclude the Appointing Authority from appointing officers who were immediately

¶89

(10 of 13)

¶90

[CW-19170/2017]

¶91

before 1.11.1956 in the employment of per-reorganization State of Ajmer, Bombay and Madhya Bharat to suitable posts in integration of their services:

¶92

(iii) The persons who were appointed to the posts include in the Schedule in ad hoc/officiating/temporary basis before 1.1.1972 and were working as such on the date these rules come into force shall be screened and recommended by a committee referred to in rule 24 for adjusting their suitability on the posts held provided that they possess the academic qualifications prescribed in these rules either for direct recruitment or promotion for the prescribed qualifications on the basis of which the persons were selected for ad hoc/officiating/temporary appointment:

¶93

Provided that a person appointed on ad hoc basis shall not be entitled to screening for a post higher than to which lower post who fulfilled qualifications prescribed for the post was either not given such ad hoc appointment or is not entitled to screening under this rule,

¶94

Note: Seniority for the purpose shall be determined according to length or continuous service to a post.

¶95

Provided further that the committee appointed under these rules for adjudging suitability by screening either as an excdeption of general methods of recruitment or as initial constitution of service, may ex-gratia recommend, if any of the employees with more than three years of service on a post for which he is to be screened is not adjudged suitable and if thereafter has no right to be appointed on a lower post, there upon such an employee shall be treated as surplus employee under the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Service employed may be absorbed on the lower post on the recommendations of the committee subject to such conditions as may be laid down by it.

¶96

(iv) That the persons who have been continuously holding the post of Excise Inspector Grade-II in an adhoc or urgent 31.3.88 and are still holding the post on the date this amendment comes into force, shall be screened by a committee consiting of the Excise commissioner, Dy. Scretary to Govt. Finance (Excise), Dy. Secretary to Govt. Department of personnel and Additional commissioner Excise (Admn.) for adjuding their suitability for the post held by them and shall be appointed to the said post on regular basis in the service, if they possess qualifications and experience prescribed in these rules for direct recruitment. The inter-

¶97

(11 of 13)

¶98

[CW-19170/2017]

¶99

se-seniority of persons adjudged suitable shall be determined by the committee according to the length of continous service on the post of Excise Inspector Grade-II.

¶100

(2) Recruitment to the service by the aforesaid method shall be made in such a manner that the persons appointed to the service by each method do not at any time exceed the percentage laid down in the Rules/Schedule of the total cadre strength as sanctioned for each category from time to time.

¶101

It will also relevant to take note of the response of Respondent No. 1 (D.O.P) to para 12 to 19 of the writ application no. 19170/2017, which reads thus:

¶102

“That in response to paras 12 to 19 which relate to the answering respondent no. 1 regarding relief for carry forwarding the 14 vacancies of RAS Exam 2012 to RAS Exam 2016, it is humbly submitted that in the RAS Exam 2012, 14 posts were shown to be reserved for departmental candidates of Excise Departmental candidates of Excise Department but none of them had been selected. As per Rules, the alleged 14 vacancies should have been carry forwarded to the next year vacancies but prior to allotment of these vacancies of RAS Exam 2012, which were allotted on 11.02.2016, the requisition for RAS Examination 2013 was sent to the RPSC on 02.01.2013 and for RAS Examination 2016, the requisition was sent to RPSC by the State Government on 23.12.2015. Thus, the fourteen vacancies of RAS 2012 were not carry forwarded for the Exams of RAS 2013 and RAS 2016. Out of these 14 vacancies, 2 vacancies are already carry forwarded vacancies of the earlier years, as such only 12 vacancies have to be carry forwarded and accordingly for the next examination of RAS 2017, the above 12 vacancies will be carry forwarded.”

¶103

Admittedly, respondents issued the result for RAS Competitive Examination-2012 on 17^th July, 2015, wherein no departmental candidate was selected against the 14 vacancies reserved for the departmental candidates under Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service. Thus, in the face of provisions of the Rules of

¶104

(12 of 13)

¶105

[CW-19170/2017]

¶106

1974, the unfilled reserved vacancies ought to have been carried forward to the next year i.e. the subsequent examination after declaration of the result of RAS Competitive Examination-2012. Which is RAS and RTS Combined Examination-2016.

¶107

True it is that no candidate was selected against the 14 vacancies reserved for the departmental candidates under Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service. In the eventuality aforesaid, the omission of the respondents to carry forward the reserved vacancies of the RAS Competitive Examination-2012, cannot be pleaded as an excuse. The unfilled reserved vacancies were required to be carried forward to the subsequent recruitment year as prescribed under Rule 6(1)(a) of the Rules of 1974. For no candidate was selected against the said vacancies reserved for the departmental candidates of Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service; there was no need to wait for the allotment process of the vacancies. Thus, the respondents failed to act as per mandate of the Rules of 1974. The requisition was sent to the respondentRPSC by the State Government on 23^rd December, 2015, for the RAS Examination-2016, is an admitted fact, while the advertisement for RAS Examination-2016, was issued on 28^th April, 2016; hence, it is evident on the face of record that the respondents had sufficient time to carry forward the vacancies reserved for the departmental candidates/ministerial employees, which remained unfilled from the RAS Examination-2012.

¶108

For the reasons and discussions aforesaid so also in singular facts of the matters at hand; the writ applications succeed and are hereby allowed. Final result dated 17^th October, 2017, declared

¶109

(13 of 13)

¶110

[CW-19170/2017]

¶111

without inclusion of 14 unfilled vacancies of departmental candidates under Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Services advertised under RAS and RTS Recruitment Examination-2012 to RAS-Recruitment Examination-2016; is illegal and invalid. Hence, is hereby quashed.

¶112

The respondents are directed to redraw the result including 14 unfilled vacancies of RAS Direct Recruitment Examination-2012 for the ministerial employees involved herein in RAS Direct Recruitment Examination-2016.

¶113

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

¶114

No costs.

¶115

(VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA),J

¶116

Pcg/284 to 286

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. State of Raj and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Sharma 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijendra Chema and Anr. Vs Registrar Sahakari Bank Anr.

Kautilya Mahila T.T. College Vs Co-Ordinator, P.T.E.T.-2018, M.D.S. University

Amit Navariya Son of Shri Bhagwan Sahay Navariya Vs State of Raj. through Its Secretary

Chotu Lal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Satya Narayan Sharma S/O. Shri Choga Lal Sharma Vs Narayan S/O. Shri Madan Gopal Garg

Babu Lal Agarwal S/O Shri Phool Chand Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principal Secretary