Dismissed

R P S C Ajmer v. Pawan Vyas

Rajasthan HC16 Jul 2018SAW/715/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Special Appeal challenged the Single Judge's order allowing a petition to change recruitment category from general to ministerial. The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower decision because the change was made based on incorrect information from the Commission and before final detriment to the petitioner. The application for condonation of delay was also dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The appeal filed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and the application for condonation of delay were dismissed.

R P S C Ajmer Vs Pawan Vyas — Rajasthan HC (2018) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 715/2018

¶3

Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Pawan Vyas S/o Rajendra Vyas , R/o Jeevan Ram Harsh Ki Gali, Kigdi Mohta Chowk, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

¶7

----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr MF Baig For Respondent(s) : Mr Ajatshatru Mina

¶8

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI

¶9

Judgment

¶10

16/07/2018

¶11

A writ petition was filed to seek a direction for consideration of candidature of the petitioner-non-appellant against the category of ministerial employee for selection to the post of Junior Accountant. It has been allowed by the learned Single Judge.

¶12

It is a case where Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) issued an advertisement for recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant. Petitioner, along with others, submitted application form. The Commission allowed the candidates to change the category or alter it. The petitioner-non-appellant made a request to Commission to allow him to change his category from ministerial employee to that of general. The aforesaid change was

¶13

(2 of 4)

¶14

[SAW-715/2018]

¶15

sought for the reason that petitioner is serving in Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (JVVNL).

¶16

The petitioner sought information from the Commission as to whether they would fall in the category of ministerial employee for whom a separate quota has been kept for the post in question. It was informed that employees of Ajmer Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited (AVVNL) would not fall in the category of ministerial employees. The change of category was requested after getting the information from the Commission.

¶17

The Commission had accepted representation of the petitioner for change of category though it was to his disadvantage because certain posts are reserved for the ministerial employees.

¶18

It is stated that a bunch of writ petitions led by “Surendra Kumar Vyas & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors”, SB Civil Writ Petition No.7239/2017 were filed to seek a direction to treat employees of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to be ministerial employees of the State. The writ petitions therein were allowed vide order dated 18.12.2017 holding that employees of Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited would fall in the category of ministerial employee. The appeal against the said order was also dismissed.

¶19

Immediately after knowing about the judgment aforesaid, petitioner made a request to treat them in the category of ‘ministerial employees’ though, by that time, result of the

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[SAW-715/2018]

¶22

examination was declared. Since their candidature was not considered against the quota meant for ministerial employees, a writ petition was preferred. It was allowed in the peculiar facts.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant-Commission submits that change of category from general to ministerial employee was sought after declaration of the result when petitioner remained unsuccessful. A reference of the judgment in the case of Surendra Kumar Vyas (supra) has been given which does not permit change of category after declaration of result. The prayer is accordingly to allow the appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶24

We have given our sincere consideration on the issue raised by the appellant. The facts of the case are peculiar for the reason that petitioner-non-appellant applied for that post in the category of ministerial employee to get benefit of the quota meant for the said category. He changed the category under misguidance by the Commission that employees of AVVNL would not fall in the category of ministerial employees.

¶25

It is not in dispute that, later on, in the writ petitions led by Surendra Kumar Vyas (supra), this court held that the employees of the Jodhpur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited would fall in the category of ministerial employees. On the verdict of this court, petitioner immediately applied for allowing him to maintain the category opted at the first instance. It may be on declaration of the result but facts of the case suggest that petitioner changed the category on the information given by the Commission itself. If

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[SAW-715/2018]

¶28

the Commission would not have informed that employees of the AVVNL would not fall in the category of ministerial employees, petitioner would not have changed the category. The clarity about the category came when the judgment was given by this court in the case of Surendra Kumar Vyas (supra). Immediately after the verdict of this court, petitioner made a representation to allow him to continue with the category submitted in the application form and, in the process, result was declared but right of the petitioner cannot be taken away in the peculiar facts of this case.

¶29

It is not a case where default lies on the part of the candidate in submission of the application form. It is on an information given by the Commission, that petitioner prayed for change in the category. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to cause interference in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, appeal is dismissed finding no merit therein.

¶30

In view of dismissal of the appeal, application under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 47 days is also dismissed.

¶31

(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI), J. (MN BHANDARI), J.

¶32

bnsharma

R P S C Ajmer v. Pawan Vyas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R P S C Ajmer v. Pawan Vyas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhupendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Vishnu Kumar Gupta Vs High Court of Judicature and Ors.

Akhil Bhartiya Valmiki Samaj Vs State of Raj and Anr.

R F C Vs Rajendra Singh Gehlot

Shashi Kala Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Its Principle Secretary, Department of Medical and Health Services

State of Raj and Ors. Vs Suresh Chandra Jat and Anr.