Single judge order allowing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18183/2018 in terms of Ravi Jajot judgment, issuing similar directions regarding recruitment process grievances.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 18183/2018
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anjali Gopa For Respondent(s) : Mr. Parvej for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
28/11/2018
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by judgment of this Court in Ravi Jajot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10496/2018 , decided on 30.8.2018 and, therefore, the present writ petition may also be decided in terms of the said judgment.
In the case of Ravi Jajot (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after dealing with the issues, raised therein, inter alia, directed as under:-
“85. 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
(2 of 2)
[CW-18183/2018]
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.
In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by the petitioners is allowed in terms of judgment in the case of Ravi Jajot (supra) with similar directions as noticed hereinbefore.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
258-Rmathur/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to decide the present writ petition in accordance with Co-ordinate Bench judgment on recruitment appeals.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravi Jajot v. State of RajasthanFollowed¶16
Ravi Jajot v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10496/2018
Sukh Lal S/o Kanti Lal
Dhan Pal S/o Champa Lal
State Of Rajasthan
Director, Local Bodies, Govt. Of Rajasthan
Municipal Council, Banswara
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Arun Bhansali
Parties & counsel
