Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar Lakhera S/O Sh. Om Prakash Lakhera v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Rajasthan HC16 Aug 2019SAW/356/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal filed by candidates challenging the Single Judge's order. The Court held that the Corporation had completed a fresh exercise resulting in a revised merit list involving 943 candidates, replacing the earlier list of 552. The Court opined that requiring the Corporation to repeat the exercise after such a long interval was not appropriat

What the court decided

AI extract

Rajesh Kumar Lakhera S/O Sh. Om Prakash Lakhera Vs… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 356/2019

¶3

Rajesh Kumar Lakhera S/o Sh. Om Prakash Lakhera, Aged 36 years, R/o Sawai Katla, Post Sarwad, District Ajmer (Raj.) (Roll No. 39546)

¶4

Karan Singh Naruka S/o Sh. Hanuman Singh, Aged 35 Years, H. No.4, Shiv Vihar Colony, Jagdamba Nagar, Karnathpura, Rawan Gate, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No. 31840)

¶5

Girraj Prasad S/o Sh. Suraj Mal Sharma, Aged 35 Years, R/o Village Chavand Ka Mand, Post Sayapura, Tehsil Jamva Ramgardh, District Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No. 40246)

¶6

Indra Pal S/o Sh. Ram Kumar, Aged years R/o Village Pura Ki Dhani Via Nua Post Derwal, Tehsil & District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 47234)

¶7

Babu Lal Prajapat S/o Sh. Ram Kishan Prajapat, Aged 34 Years, R/o Village Teliwala, Post Garhi Sawai Ram, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar (Raj.) (Roll No. 47234)

¶8

Mahaveer Prasad Sharma S/o Shri Nathu Lal Sharma, Aged 38 Years, R/o Village & Post Danthla Meena, ViaGathwari District Jaipur (Raj.)

¶9

----Appellants

¶10

Versus

¶11

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Through is Managing Director, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur.

¶12

Pyare Lal Dhaka S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Dhaka, Aged 26 Years, R/o Sawloda Purohitan Via Khudi Bari, Distt- Sikar (Raj).

¶13

Hardayal Meen S/o Birbal Singh, Aged years R/o Balram Nagar, Ward No. 36 Sikar (Raj.)

¶14

Rajesh Kumar Fogawat S/o Sh. .., Aged 29 Years, R/o Village - Tasar Chhoti, Post Tasar Badi, Distt. Sikar (Raj.)

¶15

……..Respondent

¶16

Om Prakash S/o Sh.phool Singh Suthar, Aged 39 Years, R/o VPO Nagrana, Tehsil Sangria, Distt- Hanumangarh (Raj.) (Roll No. 53948)

¶17

Laxmi Kant Jain S/o Sh. Nathu Lal Jain, R/o V & P-

¶18

(2 of 6)

¶19

[SAW-356/2019]

¶20

Chhareda, Tehsil-Dausa, Distt- Dausa (Raj.) (Roll No. 54239)

¶21

Rajendra Singh S/o Sh. Anoop Singh, Aged years, R/o V & P Rajaliya, Via-Kuchaman, Distt- Nagaur (Raj.) (Roll No. 40155)

¶22

Laxmi Chand S/o Sh. Hari Ram, Aged 37 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Old Abadi Near Sanjeev Provision Store, Distt. Sriganganagar (Raj.) (Roll No. 22415)

¶23

Nanu Lal Jat S/o Sh. Jagdish Jat, Aged 40 Years, R/oVillage Post Ridliya (Rampura) Tehsil Todaraisingh, Distt. Tonk (Raj.) (Roll No. 36778)

¶24

Teja Ram S/o Sh. Moti Ram, Aged 36 Years, R/o Ward No29, Indra Nagar, Distt. Barmer (Raj.) (Roll No. 10442)

¶25

Vijay Ramawat S/o Sh. Bhanwar Lal, Aged 29 Years, R/o 2/557, Kudi Bhagtasani Housing Board, Basni- I Phase, Jodhpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 57248)

¶26

Ramchandra Singh Sunda S/o Sh. Ram Karan Sunda, Aged 37 Years, R/o-Shiejiavas, Tehsil-Laxmangarh, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) (Roll No.-14005)

¶27

Nemchand S/o Sh. Gurudev Singh, Aged 38 Years, R/o Near Yadav Colony, Shri Vijay Nagar, DistrictSriganganagar (Raj.) (Roll No. 23401)

¶28

Virender Singh Khangarot S/o Sh. Madan Singh Khangarot, Aged 36 Years, R/o V & P Ladera Tehsil Dudu, Distt.-Jaipur (Raj.) (Roll No. 24474)

¶29

Om Prakash Yadav S/o Sh. Bholu Ram, Aged 33 Years, R/o-Village-Mandota Via- Khond, Distt. Sikar (Raj.) (Roll No. 17657)

¶30

Ranvir Singh Yadav S/o Sh. Raja Ram Yadav, Aged 35 Years, R/o V & P Gunta, Tehsil Bansoor, Distt. Alwar (Raj.) (Roll No. 33181)

¶31

Dola Ram S/o Sh. Jeevan Ram, Aged 36 Years, R/oVillage And Post Rajiya, Tehsil Nava, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.) (Roll No. 18568)

¶32

Girdhari Lal S/o Sh. Hemraj Yadav, Aged 33 Years, R/oPalsana, Tehsil-Dantaramgarh, Distt- Sikar (Raj.) (Roll No. 17345)

¶33

Deepak Kumar S/o Sh. Vijay Singh, Aged 35 Years, R/o Pahadtal Farm, Nagar Road, Deeg, Distt- Bharatpur (Raj.) (Roll No. 46044)

¶34

(3 of 6)

¶35

[SAW-356/2019]

¶36

Rajbeer Singh S/o Sh. Neki Ram, Aged 38 Years, R/oVillage & Post- Bahadurvash, Tehsil & District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 14429)

¶37

Rajveer S/o Sh. Mahveer Singh, Aged 36 Years, R/oVillage Kisari, Post-Bahadurvas, Distt- Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 14428)

¶38

Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Kurda Ram, Aged 32 Years, R/o- V & P-Bahadurvash, Via-Mandwa, Tehsil & DistrictKhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 14875)

¶39

Harbans Singh S/o Sh. Kaka Singh, Aged 34 Years, R/oKharliyan, Tehsil-Pilibanga, District-Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶40

Kailash Chand S/o Sh. Shishupal Singh, Aged 35 Years, R/o-Village-Dalsar Kalan, Via-Bumra, Tehsil NawalgarhDistt- Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 14696)

¶41

Manoj Kumar Khinchi S/o Sh. Shanti Lal Khinchi, Aged 32 Years, R/o-Near Shavardiya Public School, Pprali Road, Distt- Sikar (Raj.) (Roll No. 17263)

¶42

Rajveer Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh, Aged 38 Years, R/o Village & Post Bhobia, Tehsil Chirawa, Distt- Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 14517)

¶43

Khinya Ram Godara S/o Sh. Khinya Ram Godara, Aged 34 Years, R/o-Village-Kharnal, Tehsil & District- Nagaur (Raj.) (Roll No. 28105)

¶44

Narayan Dan S/o Sh. Udai Dan Charan, Aged 37 Years, R/o-Village-Beh Charan, Postn Khetsar, Tehsil Ocean, District-Jodhpur (Raj.)

¶45

Rameshwar lal S/o Shri Ramu Ram, Aged years R/oVillage-Tasar Chhoti, Tehsil Tasar Badi, District-Sikar (Raj.)

¶46

Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Jai Singh, Aged years R/o-Village & Post Gada, Khera, Tehsil Bhuwana, District-Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶47

Somveer S/o Sh. Liladhar, Aged years R/o-Bishanpura, Post-Chittosha, Tehsil Bhuwana, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.)

¶48

Manchhi Ram S/o Sh. Toda Ram, Aged 34 Years, R/o Village Khakharki, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.) (Roll No. 28790)

¶49

Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Om Prakash, Aged 34 Years, R/o Village Bada, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu (Raj.) (Roll No. 24110)

¶50

(4 of 6)

¶51

[SAW-356/2019]

¶52

Dalip Singh Jhakad S/o Sh. Mam Chand, Aged 39 Years, R/o Village Dhani Majhau Singnor, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 14612)

¶53

Murli Manohar S/o Sh. Ram Vilas Das, Aged 44 Years, R/o Village Dayalpura, Post Lawa, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) (Roll No. 84542)

¶54

Om Prakash S/o Sh. Mohar Singh, Aged 39 Years, R/o Village Kanawasi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.) (Roll No. 13908)

¶55

Virendra Singh S/o Sh. Sabe Singh, Aged 32 Years, R/o VPO Bangothari, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.) (Roll No. 15304)

¶56

Sanjay Kumar S/o Sh. Hoshiyar Singh, Aged 32 Years, R/o Village & Post Chandgothi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.) (Roll No. 58721)

¶57

Shiv Ram Jat S/o Shri Ram Jivan Jat, Aged 44 Years, R/o Village Chorupura, Post Lawa, Tehsil Malpura, District Tonk (Raj.) (Roll No. 84542)

¶58

----Performa Respondents

¶59

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vinayak Joshi

¶60

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶61

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶62

Judgment

¶63

16/08/2019

¶64

D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.622/2019

¶65

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶66

The application is allowed.

¶67

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.356/2019

¶68

The present appellants challenge a common judgment of the Single Judge whereby batch of writ petitions was rejected.

¶69

The case relates to recruitment to the post of Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The recruitment

¶70

(5 of 6)

¶71

[SAW-356/2019]

¶72

process began in 2010; the cut off for the written test was published on 9-1-2011.

¶73

Thereafter, the recruitment was embroiled in a series of litigation – the first related to the cut off marks determined for Other Backward Classes (OBC) as against the general merit candidates. The Corporation was subjected to certain directions to revise the list; so a second litigation related to imposition of condition that the candidate should possess licence to drive heavy motor vehicles; the third related to formulation of minimum marks for the trade test – not declared at the time of recruitment process but evolved and imposed subsequently. After the Court had to repeatedly intervene in the recruitment, eventually the Supreme Court upheld the order of this Court whereby it was clarified that the select list should be drawn dependent on who had approached to this Court on a particular date i.e. 9-11-2011.

¶74

The Supreme Court eventually by its orders, recorded that revision of results would have entailed remarking/revision of 40,000 candidates, confined the exercise 6032 candidates only. A Division Bench further clarified that extra marks, wherever directed were to be awarded to those who had approached this Court prior to 9-11-2011.

¶75

After the eventual revision of results/declaration, several writ petitioners approached this Court – one batch contended that those who were selected during the interregnum (552 candidates) ought not to be removed. Other batch including the present appellants whose contention was that even after revision certain candidates were retained in service, as the candidates with lesser merit were allowed to continue even after revision and that in the event of their being removed from service, their (i.e. the writ petitioners) claims would be acceptable.

¶76

The learned Single Judge, in relation to the present petitions, held as follows :-

¶77

“ 59. I have gone through the entire pleadings made in the petitions and this Court finds that the petitioners do not have any case or issue which needs to be adjudicated by taking into account the submissions, made during the course of hearing.

¶78

60. This Court has already found that the Corporation has to prepare the merit list by not insisting on conditions of possessing HMV

¶79

(6 of 6)

¶80

[SAW-356/2019]

¶81

Driving Licence and further the formula evolved for trade test has also to be kept in mind. The employer-Corporation has carried out the exercise and now the list of 552 candidates who are not finding place in the revised merit list and list of 943 candidates of final select list has been prepared. The Corporation has now declared separate cut-off marks for each category as per revised result and accordingly it intends to fill the post. The issue with regard to directions given in the cases of Narpat Dan (supra), Prem Prakash Sharma (supra) and Ramesh Chand (supra) cannot be revived in the present batch of writ petitions. The petitioners if do not find place in the revised select/merit list as they have not secured the requisite marks, no fault can be found with the Corporation and the prayer made by the petitioners cannot be granted by this Court.”

¶82

It is contended that Corporation has adopted double standards – on the one hand revising the results and applying the merit criteria to candidates; on the other allowing retention of candidates who fall much below the last cut off.

¶83

This Court is of the opinion that Single Judge’s approach and the impugned order could not be defaulted. It has been noticed that Corporation has carried out the fresh exercise and published a list of 943 candidates of which the earlier 552 are not a part. In these circumstances, requiring the Corporation yet again carry out the same exercise in relation to a recruitment which started in 2010 could not be appropriated.

¶84

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

¶85

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶86

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶87

Govind/Vijay/14

Rajesh Kumar Lakhera S/O Sh. Om Prakash Lakhera v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Rajesh Kumar Lakhera S/O Sh. Om Prakash Lakhera v. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Son of Shri Ghisa Ram Panwar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Shri Babu Lal Somani Vs the Ito

Health and Educational Care Society Vs State of Rajasthan