Dismissed

Vinod Sisodia v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC14 Dec 2018WRW/223/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of two connected writ review petitions challenging recruitment appointments. The Court found that earlier litigation explicitly saved the service of candidates appointed under the initial merit list. Since no person with lesser marks was appointed contrary to the revised list, the review applications were dismissed, affirming the validity of the initial appointments.

What did the court decide?

The review applications filed by Sonpal Verma Kumhar and Vinod Sisodia were dismissed; inter se priority over the holding of the initial appointees is not granted notwithstanding the lower marks of th

Vinod Sisodia Vs State of Rajasthan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

(1) D.B. Writ Review No. 222/2018

¶4

Sonpal Verma Kumhar and Ors.

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected with

¶10

(2) D.B. Writ Review No. 223/2018

¶11

Vinod Sisodia

¶12

----Petitioner Versus

¶13

State of Rajasthan and Ors.

¶14

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Mathur For Respondent(s) : --

¶15

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

¶16

Order

¶17

14/12/2018

¶18

The two applications seeking review are being disposed of by a common order, though by one, review of the order dated 08.05.2017 passed by the Division Bench is prayed for and in the other review of the order dated 01.06.2017 passed by the Division Bench is prayed for. Factual background is common and thus the review applications are being decided together.

¶19

We note that the orders under review were challenged before the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petitions which were

¶20

(2 of 3)

¶21

[WRW-222/2018]

¶22

withdrawn on 13.10.2017 with liberty to seek review before this Court.

¶23

Relevant facts are that RPSC commenced the recruitment to appoint Teacher Grade-II by issuing an advertisement on 01.06.2011 which were amended on 24.02.2012. Result was declared by RPSC on 06.03.2012. Various writ petitions were filed before this Court questioning the answer key. No stay being granted in any writ petitions on recommendations made by RPSC as per the merit list prepared with reference to the model answer key appointments were offered and candidates joined. The writ petitions questioning the model answer key were disposed of directing RPSC to revise the answer key for Hindi, Science and English papers in light of palpably wrong answers treated to be corrected and question being out of syllabus.

¶24

Relevant would it be to highlight that the Court did not quash the appointment given pursuant to the original merit list drawn up by RPSC.

¶25

Second round of litigation ensued. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3541/2014 Pooja Sharma vs. RPSC and Ors. , on 24.11.2014 the High Court directed that appointments would be made as per the revised merit list, but without disturbing the candidates who had been appointed pursuant to the first merit list drawn.

¶26

Third round of litigation commenced in the year 2017 when the review applicants and few others filed writ petitions pointing out to the Court that persons lower in merit as per the revised merit list were retained in service. They prayed that since they had secured more marks they should be offered appointment. 7. View taken by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions filed in the year 2017 is that since appointments made pursuant to

¶27

(3 of 3)

¶28

[WRW-222/2018]

¶29

the original merit list drawn were never cancelled and on the contrary when writ petition filed by Pooja Sharma was decided, it was clearly indicated that candidates who had already been appointed, qua them, service would not be terminated.

¶30

We find no merit in the review applications for the reason admittedly no person having lesser marks than the review applicants in the revised merit list has been offered appointment. The grievance is that persons who were offered appointment as per merit list drawn at the first instance were being retained in service, though in the revised merit list they have obtained lesser marks than the review applicants.

¶31

Suffice to state that in earlier rounds of litigation said appointments were saved.

¶32

The review applications are dismissed.

¶33

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶34

3&4-MohitTak/-

Vinod Sisodia v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Sisodia 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State and Ors. Vs Ganpat Singh

Yogesh Ojha Vs State and Ors.

Om Prakash Khatri and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sonpal Verma Kumhar Vs State of Rajasthan

Sona Processors India Pvt. Ltd., Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gajendra Upadhyay Vs State of Rajasthan