Partly allowed

Arvind Kumar Labana v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC27 Jul 2020CW/16239/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order modified an interim stay on the appointment of Agricultural Supervisors and disposed of multiple writ petitions. The Court accepted the State's offer to expand vacancies to address locust attack needs. The petitions were disposed of without hearing merits, directing the State to determine vacancy expansion within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Modified the interim stay order to allow appointments subject to final outcome; directed the State Government to reconsider vacancy expansion and increase seats within six weeks.

Arvind Kumar Labana Vs State of Rajasthan — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4508/2020

¶3

Kapil Jain S/o Hemant Jain, Aged About 21 Years, Kharvado Ka Mohalla, Near Nagda Jain Tmeple, Salumber Dist Udaipur (Raj.).

¶4

Vikas S/o Naresh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, Sector No.7 Bhagwan Pura-A, Khandu Colony, Dahod Road, Banswara (Raj.).

¶5

----Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶8

The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶9

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶10

The Secretary, Department Of Administrative Reforms And Coordination, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶11

Yogesh Shrimali, Roll No.2280225 Through The Secretary Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶12

Khushboo Sharma, Roll No.1678422 Through The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶13

Dalil Singh Deora, Roll No.1197892 Through The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶14

----Respondents

¶15

Connected With

¶16

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16239/2019

¶17

(2 of 7)

¶18

Arvind Kumar Labana S/o Ishwar Lal Labana, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Padedi, Post Bankda, Via Peeth, Tehsil Simalwara, District Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶19

----Petitioner

¶20

Versus

¶21

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶22

The Commissioner, Agriculture Production And Principal Secretary, Agriculture And Horticulture Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶23

The Commissioner, Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶24

The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶25

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶26

The Commissioner, Tribal Area Development Department, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2884/2020

¶29

Bharat Lal Malviya S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Malviya, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Rathajana, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh (Raj.).

¶30

Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Anand Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Jhasdi Tehsil And District Pratapgarh (Raj.)

¶31

----Petitioners

¶32

Versus

¶33

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶34

The Commissioner, Agriculture Production And Principal Secretary, Agriculture And Horticulture Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶35

The Commissioner, Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶36

The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial

¶37

(3 of 7)

¶38

Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶39

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶40

----Respondents

¶41

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4644/2020

¶42

Deepika D/o Shri Gokul Patidar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village And Post Naugama, Tehsil- Bagidora District Banswara (Raj.).

¶43

Pankaj Patidar S/o Shri Pratap Patidar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Naugama, Tehsil- Bagidora District Banswara (Raj.).

¶44

Satyaprakash Kumhar S/o Shri Mangilal Kumhar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Bichiwada, Post- Phalasiya Tehsil- Jhadol District Udaipur (Raj.).

¶45

Bina Chouhan S/o Sh. Devi Singh Chouhan, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Mandav Tehsil Sagwara District Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶46

Paras Kunwar Anada D/o Sh. Bharat Singh Ahada, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo Mandav Tehsil Sagwara District Dungarpur (Raj.).

¶47

----Petitioners

¶48

Versus

¶49

The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel (K-2), Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶50

The Commissioner, Agriculture Production And Principal Secretary, Agriculture And Horticulture Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶51

The Commissioner, Agriculture, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶52

The Chairman, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶53

The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial Service Selection Board, Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institution Campus, Durgapura, Jaipur.

¶54

----Respondents

¶55

(4 of 7)

¶56

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	PR Mehta
	Ms.	Deepika Soni
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Mr.	Vinit Sanadhya MC Bishnoi
	Mr.	Shrayensh Mehta for
	Mr.	KS Rajpurohit, AAG

¶57

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶58

Order

¶59

27/07/2020

¶60

In S.B.Civil Writ Petitions No.16239/2019, 2884/2020

¶61

& 4644/2020 :-

¶62

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matter in Court.

¶63

Learned counsel for the parties have jointly shown the order dated 27.05.2020 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court, which reads as follows:-

¶64

“Learned counsel for the parties have been heard through video conferencing.

¶65

The matters comes up on an application filed on behalf of the State seeking vacation / modification of the interim order dated 24.10.2019 passed in S.B. Civil writ Petition No.6239/2019.

¶66

On 24.10.2019, it was inter alia ordered by this Court as under:-

¶67

“24/10/2019

¶68

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the advertisement (Annex.-1) was issued on 25.05.2018 i.e. after notification dated 19.05.2018 (Annex.-5), whereby additional areas were included in TSP Area, however, it is claimed that the respondents have not provided reservation for TSP Area in terms of the notification dated 04.07.2016 (Annex.-

¶69

(5 of 7)

¶70

9) by including the newly included area pursuant to notification dated 19.05.2018 (Annex.-5), resulting in candidates of TSP Area getting lesser posts.

¶71

Learned counsel Mr. Vinit Sanadhya, who appears for the respondent-Board submits that the issue has to be responded by the Department of Personnel.

¶72

In view of the submissions made, issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application to the respondents No. 1 to 3 and 6, returnable on 06.11.2019.

¶73

In the meanwhile and till the next date, the respondents shall not accord appointments pursuant to the document verification held pursuant to the result declared by the Board dated 09.08.2019 (Annex.-7).”

¶74

Learned Advocate General made submissions that on account of the imminent situation, which has arisen on account of Locust Attack, the Agricultural Supervisors are immediately required and on account of the passing of the interim order despite the fact that document verification has already been conducted of the selected candidates, appointments could not be made, which order be vacated / modified.

¶75

Further submissions have been made that even if the plea raised by the petitioners is ultimately accepted, the posts in the TSP area would get increased and in such eventuality the State would increase the requisite posts and therefore grant of appointments would not harm the petitioners in any manner.

¶76

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently made the submissions that irrespective of the submission made by learned Advocate General, on account of the issues raised by the petitioners in the present writ petitions, the grievance as raised would not be satisfied.

¶77

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

¶78

The interim order was granted by the Court by noticing the submissions, however, on account of imminent situation, which has arisen, as noticed hereinbefore, the

¶79

(6 of 7)

¶80

grant of appointments to the Agricultural Supervisors appears to be the need of the hour and that as learned Advocate General has fairly made a statement that in case, the petitions are allowed, the requisite posts would be increased, the same takes care of the cause of the petitioners.

¶81

In view thereof, the application filed by the State under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India seeking vacation / modification of the interim order is allowed.

¶82

The interim order dated 24.10.2019 is modified to the extent that the State would be free to accord appointments pursuant to the document verification held pursuant to the result declared by the Board dated 9.8.2019 (Annex.7).

¶83

However, the appointments accorded would remain subject to the final outcome of the present writ petitions, which aspect be indicated in the appointment orders of the selected candidates. Further, in case, the petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed and the posts are required to be increased, as submitted, the requisite posts shall be increased by the State.

¶84

With the above modified directions, the stay applications 16334/2019 and 2936/2020 stand disposed of. List the petitions on 7.7.2020. ”

¶85

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without going into the merits of the case, the matter may be disposed of in light of the consideration offered by the State Government in pursuance of the order dated 27.05.2020 whereby the learned Advocate General has offered to increase the seats in proportion with the expansion of TSP area if permissible in law.

¶86

In light of such limited prayer, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to take appropriate decision regarding expansion of the TSP vacancies in light of the subsequent notifications and the statement given by learned

¶87

(7 of 7)

¶88

Advocate General. The State Government shall be open to consider increase in seats, if law so requires. Such appropriate determination shall be made within six weeks from today strictly in accordance with law. Thus without touching the case on merits, we direct the State Government to exercise its discretion as per law. The petitioners shall be at liberty to approach this Court again, in case need arises.

¶89

In S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4508/2020 :-

¶90

In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matter in Court. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not want to press this writ petition against the private respondents. 3. Accordingly, the writ petition against the private respondents is dismissed as withdrawn. However, for rest of the controversy in relation to rest of the respondents, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in light of the aforequoted order passed by this Court on 27.05.2020, the respondents may be directed to consider the expansion of the vacancies in question in light of the subsequent notifications and the statement given by learned Advocate General within a period of six weeks.

¶91

Thus, the present writ petition is disposed of in the same terms as order already made in SBCWP No.16239/2019 with a direction to the respondents to make such consideration within six weeks from today while appropriate decision shall be taken by the State Government strictly in accordance with law.

¶92

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶93

49-52-Sudheer/-

Arvind Kumar Labana v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar Labana 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arpit Kumar Jain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Smt. Deepika Swarnkar Vs the Director, Elementary Edu Cum Panchayati Raj

Bidhan Kumar Sikdar Vs State of Rajasthan

Narendra Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Narpat Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prama Devi Vs Union of India