Allowed

Jagdish Prasad Gora S/O Shyobux Ram Gora v. University of Rajasthan, through Its Registrar

Rajasthan HC2 Jan 2019CW/20109/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, contractual employees of the University of Rajasthan who failed in a recruitment exam, challenged the denial of 15% bonus marks and the subsequent appointment of fresh employees via placement agency. The court rejected the bonus marks claim but ordered the university not to replace petitioners with new agency hires.

What did the court decide?

The respondent University is directed to continue the petitioners on contract basis till regularly selected candidates are made available; they shall not be replaced by another set of contractual empl

Jagdish Prasad Gora S/O Shyobux Ram Gora… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 20109/2018

¶3

Jagdish Prasad Gora S/o Shyobux Ram Gora, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Village Dhankya Tehsil Dist Jaipur.

¶4

Ranjeet Singh Panwar S/o Late Shri Sohan Lal, R/o House No.25, Bhunishwari Vatika, Panchyawala, Jaipur.

¶5

Gajendra Kumar Gupta S/o Late Shri Ramavtar Gupta, R/o Village Dyoda Choud, Nayla, Kanota, Jaipur.

¶6

Satyakar S/o Kailash Chand, R/o 113, Brachpuri Ka Mohalla, Dyoda Choud, Teh Bassi, Jaipuir.

¶7

Dinesh Sain S/o Mangi Lal Sain, R/o A- 218, Sain Colony, Bai Ji Ki Kothi, Jaipur.

¶8

Mohan Lal Yadav S/o Bhanwar Singh Shankla, R/o 28, Ganesh Vihar, Malpura Gate, Sanganer, Jaipur.

¶9

Anoop Singh S/o Mangal Singh, R/o Behind Canara Bank, Gulal Kund, Bharatpur.

¶10

Ankit Baldva S/o Tara Chand, R/o 177, Krishna Nagar, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶11

Rajender Singh Rathore S/o Babu Singh Rathore, R/o 403, Jadon Nagar, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶12

----Petitioners

¶13

Versus

¶14

University Of Rajasthan, Through Its Registrar, Jaipur.

¶15

----Respondent

¶16

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sumit Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : Mr.Ajit Maloo

¶17

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶18

Judgment / Order

¶19

02/01/2019

¶20

The petitioner by way of this writ petition has assailed the action of the respondents in denying their appointment of the

¶21

(2 of 5)

¶22

[CW-20109/2018]

¶23

various post on which they are working ranging from 1996 to 2012. The petitioners are admittedly working on contract basis. As per reply filed by the respondents, their appointment is through placement agency. The Rajasthan University has conducted the regular selection process whereunder the petitioners were allowed to participate and additional bonus marks of 6% along with age relaxation was granted to the existing contractual employees. The petitioners have participated in the examination. However, they failed to be selected and thereafter have preferred this writ petition with the prayer that they should be granted 15% bonus marks instead of 6% as per the advertisement issued on 2.1.2017.

¶24

The counsel for the respondent has informed that advertisement dated 2.1.2017 was revised and fresh advertisement was issued on 22.5.2017 laying down similar condition of granting 6% bonus marks.

¶25

Alternate prayer made by the counsel for the petitioners is that while the petitioners are still continuing, the respondents are in process of making further appointments on various posts on contract basis through placement agency for which they have issued latest letter/order on 29.9.2018. The counsel for the petitioners submits that following the principle that existing contractual employees ought not be replaced by another set of contractual employees even through placement agency, the petitioners be allowed to continue on the said posts. He further submits that said letter dated 29.9.2018 was further revised vide

¶26

(3 of 5)

¶27

[CW-20109/2018]

¶28

letter dated 27.12.2018 wherein certain posts were added. The letter dated 27.12.2018 is taken on record.

¶29

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶30

As regards the prayer made by counsel for the petitioners for increasing the bonus marks to 15% in the recruitment examination conducted by the respondents vide advertisement dated 2.1.2017/22.5.2017 is concerned, this court is of the firm view that awarding of bonus marks is an exclusive domain of the recruiting body and decision thereto has to be taken by the concerned administrative level and this court would be slow in interfering as to the percentage of bonus marks which may be allotted in the recruitment examination. On the said aspect, prayer made by the counsel stands rejected.

¶31

It is also noticed that petitioners have already participated in the process of selection and had thereafter failed to make the grade for selection. Hence after having participated and accepted the terms and condition of the advertisement, they cannot turn around and cannot challenge the same. Thus the writ petition fails on the said count.

¶32

However, prayer made by counsel for the petitioners with regard to continuing the petitioners on contract basis keeping in view the requisition made by the Rajasthan University vide letter dated 27.12.2018 which specifies that employees are required for various posts in various department of University, this court is of the firm view that existing contractual employee cannot be

¶33

(4 of 5)

¶34

[CW-20109/2018]

¶35

replaced by another set of contractual employees even through placement agency. If the appointments are to be made by change of placement agency or by change of pattern, on the posts which are available on account of regularly selected employees being not available, the existing contractual employees ought not be removed to appoint another set of contractual employees. The said principle has been enshrined by the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Mohd. Abdul Kadir and anr. Vs. Director General of Police, Assam reported in (2009) 6 SCC 611 as well as by this court in several cases following the aforesaid authoritative pronouncement.

¶36

In view of aforesaid, the respondent University is directed to continue the petitioners who have been working on contractual basis till the regularly selected candidates are made available for the posts. Merely because they have issued letter dated 27.12.2018 for fresh appointment through placement agency, the petitioners cannot be deprived of continuing the service and they would not be replaced by another set of contractual employees.

¶37

This court has time and again deprecated the practice of the State and its functionaries and authorities of engaging the persons through placement agency. The process of engagement through placement agency is dehors of rules as well as dehors of constitutional provisions.

¶38

Accordingly, action of the respondent in filling up the post through placement agency is deprecated. However, since the same is not an issue before this court directly, this court refrains from

¶39

(5 of 5)

¶40

[CW-20109/2018]

¶41

passing further orders in this regard and limits its direction to the existing petitioners only that they shall not be replaced with another set of contractual employees through placement agency.

¶42

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is allowed.

¶43

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶44

Sandeep/-27

Jagdish Prasad Gora S/O Shyobux Ram Gora v. University of Rajasthan, through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad Gora S/O Shyobux Ram Gora v. University of Rajasthan, through Its Registrar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yogesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of Raj and Ors.

State of Raj and Ors. Vs the Rajasthan Civil Services a

Manvendra Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Smt. Jamna Ben Pargi W/O Himmat Singh Damore, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Daleep Kumar S/O Shri Sahabram Khileri Vs Managing Director

Bhanwar Lal Vs M D General Manager Rsrtc and Ors.