Partly allowed

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Jitendra

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2018SAW/1861/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against a Single Judge order in a recruitment case where changes were made mid-process. The High Court clarified that the language in the lower court order was not a final determination on merits but a narration of facts necessitating publicity under Order I Rule 8 CPC.

What did the court decide?

Order modified to clarify that the Single Judge's language was not a final determination on the legal merits.

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited Vs Jitendra — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1861/2018

¶4

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director (Jaipur Discom), Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶5

The Chief Personnel Officer, Department Of Personnel, Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.

¶6

The Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Jodhpur Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

¶7

Ajmer Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Ajmer, Through Its Chairman And Managing Director.

¶8

----Appellants

¶9

Versus

¶10

Jitendra S/o Shri Kanwra Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Malar, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

¶11

Chota Ram S/o Sh. Ramdeen,, Aged About 24 Years, Village Malawas, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur.

¶12

Shakti Singh S/o Sh. Mana Ram,, Aged About 25 Years, Bandada, Tehsil Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur.

¶13

Dilip Choudhary S/o Sh. Ghewar Ram,, Aged About 26 Years, Devnagar, Hariyadhana, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.

¶14

Pankaj Kumar Sharma S/o Sh. Ram Mohan Sharma,, Aged About 25 Years, Maharoli, Tehsil Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Presently Residing At Village Malar, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

¶15

Subhash Chandra S/o Sh. Rajkumar,, Aged About 28 Years, Gorkhana, Hanumangarh.

¶16

Dharmendra Singh Chohan S/o Sh. Ravinder Singh Chouhan,, Aged About 30 Years, Sidheshwar Nagar, Near Power House, Jhansi, U.p. Presently At Village Malar, Pipar City, Jodhpur.

¶17

Surendra Prajapati S/o Sh. Mala Ram Prajapati,, Aged About 22 Years, Village Luni, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

¶18

Mohan Lal S/o Sh. Gudad Ram,, Aged About 27 Years, Khariya Neev, Tehsil Sojat, District Pali.

¶19

Vikram Ojha S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar Ojha,, Aged About 23

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[SAW-1861/2018]

¶22

Years, Khejarla, Tehsil Bilara, District Jodhpur.

¶23

Manak Ram S/o Sh. Balwanta Ram,, Aged About 21 Years, Ekalkhori, Tehsil Ossiya, District Jodhpur.

¶24

Nema Ram S/o Sh. Bhagu Ram,, Aged About 28 Years, Tilwasni, Tehsil Tehsil Pipar, District Jodhpur.

¶25

Ramdeen S/o Sh. Mohan Ram,, Aged About 25 Years, Hatudi, Tehsil Bavri, District Jodhpur.

¶26

Dungar Ram S/o Sh. Bhoma Ram,, Aged About 24 Years, Hatudi, Tehsil Bavri, District Jodhpur.

¶27

Amrit Pal Singh S/o Sh. Gurmel Singh,, Aged About 25 Years, Dhingawali Rathan, Tehsil Shri Ganganagar.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Bhandari For Respondent(s) : -------------

¶30

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶31

Order

¶32

05/12/2018

¶33

An advertisement was issued inviting applications for the post of Technical Helper. The advertisement informed the candidates that one common paper for Part-A and Part-B i.e. General Awareness and Technical Knowledge/Skill would be held online. 2,30,000 applications were received. The date on which the agency nominated was to conduct the online examination another online examination pertaining to recruitment in the Railways was being undertaken by the said agency. Decision was taken to divide the candidates into six groups and hold examination on different dates and with respect to six different question papers.

¶34

(3 of 4)

¶35

[SAW-1861/2018]

¶36

A writ petition was filed pleading that rules of a game cannot be changed mid recruitment. It was pleaded that once an advertisement was issued requiring all eligible applicants to be tested on merits through common paper it was not permissible to effect the recruitment by dividing the candidates into six groups and subjecting each group to a different question paper. Issue of level of difficulty in the different question papers was also projected.

¶37

Noting aforesaid facts, vide impugned order dated 14.11.2018, the learned Single Judge has directed as under :

¶38

“Accepting the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents, it is ordered that since the respondents changed the rules of recruitment midway, they shall publish an advertisement in the newspapers where initial advertisement Annexure -1 was published, informing the selected candidates that their selection has been challenged and same is subject matter of present petition. The advertisement shall be published by respondents within fifteen days from today informing the selected candidates regarding particulars and pendency of the writ petition and the next date fixed before this Court.

¶39

List for arguments on 10.1.2019.

¶40

Registrar (Judicial) is directed to upload the copy of the writ petition alongwith reply on the website of High Court so that any candidate who intends to join the proceedings in pursuance of notice issued by way of advertisement can file his response to the writ petition before the said date.”

¶41

A perusal of the direction issued shows that since the examination had been conducted and a select list had been drawn up, rights of the selected candidates would be adversely effected if decision was rendered in favour of the writ petitioners and thus

¶42

(4 of 4)

¶43

[SAW-1861/2018]

¶44

applying the principles of Order 1 Rule 8 CPC the learned Judge has directed publicity to the writ petition to be given so that all those who are desirous of opposing or supporting the writ petition could join. To this extent we do not find infirmity in the order.

¶45

The grievance of the appellant is that the language used by the learned Single Judge evidenced from the words ‘ Accepting the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents ’, shows a determinative finding being recorded after accepting the contention.

¶46

A judgment is not a Statute. Language in a judgment has to be read in the context of the facts and the final direction issued. The language used in the offending sentence though prima facie is determinative of acceptance of the contention of the writ petitioners, but it has to be read as a narration of the fact concerning the plea of the petitioners and the necessity for the direction to be issued.

¶47

We dispose of the appeal clarifying that the sentence in question would not be read as a final determination by the learned Single Judge regarding the legal pleas raised by the writ petitioners.

¶48

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶49

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶50

4-Anil/-

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Jitendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaipur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam Limited v. Jitendra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Chairman Cum Man. Dir. Sfci and Ors. Vs Mukesh Kumar Tomar and Anr.

Union of India Vs Surendra Lal Meena

Sumitra Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Parsa Ram and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Subhash Vs Saroj @ Maina

Ramdayal Vs State of Rajasthan