Dismissed

Sandhya D/O Sh. Baghi Rath v. Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board

Rajasthan HC23 Jul 2020CW/19848/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order dismissed three writ petitions challenging a recruitment selection process for posts like Lab Assistant and Supervisor. The High Court found the respondents' conducted inquiry satisfactory, noting guilty candidates were identified and penalized. The Court held the process could not be stayed on bare allegations.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions stood dismissed and all pending applications were disposed of.

Sandhya D/O Sh. Baghi Rath Vs Subordinate and… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19836/2019

¶3

Pooja Godara D/o Sh. Subhash Godara, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No. 17, Rawatsar District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶7

The Special Operations Group (Sog), Through Its Inspector General Of Police, Near Transport Nagar Crossing, Jaipur.

¶8

----Respondents

¶9

Connected With

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14832/2019

¶11

Ram Singh Gurjar S/o Sh. Tarachand Gurjar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Dev Nagar, Post Babriya, Tehsil Bansoor, District-Alwar.

¶12

Daya Ram Choudhary S/o Sh. Prahlad Choudhary, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Presently Plot No. B-158, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Mansarovar, Jaipur.

¶13

----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶16

The Special Operations Group (Sog), Through Its Inspector General Of Police, Near Transport Nagar Crossing, Jaipur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19848/2019

¶19

Sandhya D/o Sh. Baghi Rath, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 7, Panditawali 3 Pwm, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)

¶20

----Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

Subordinate And Ministerial Services Selection Board, Through Its Chairman, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur.

¶23

The Special Operations Group (Sog), Through Its

¶24

(2 of 4)

¶25

[CW-19836/2019]

¶26

Inspector General Of Police, Near Transport Nagar Crossing, Jaipur.

¶27

----Respondents

¶28

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Kumar Gautam on behalf of Mukesh Bijarania Mr. Mithun Chaturvedi on behalf of Mr. Ashish Kumar

¶29

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Darsh Pareek. Mr. Ashish Saini Mr. Nalin G.Narain

¶30

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

¶31

Order

¶32

23/07/2020

¶33

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners challenging the ongoing selection process for the post of Lab Assistant, Agriculture Supervisor and Supervisor (Women Officer). The basis of challenging the selection process is that the same candidates interpolated in the OMR sheets of the recruiting agency and on account of which an F.I.R. was lodged by certain candidates in the State of Uttar Pradesh. This Court took cognizance of this matter and vide an interim order directed the respondents not to finalise the selection process.

¶34

Learned Advocate General submitted that based on the report received from the Uttar Pradesh Police, the respondents constituted a Committee for scanning of OMR sheets and the report of the said Committee has been placed on record along with additional affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No. 1. In the additional affidavit submitted by the respondent No.1, the action taken by them has been mentioned in Para 4,5 and 6 which reads as under:-

¶35

(3 of 4)

¶36

[CW-19836/2019]

¶37

“4. That pursuant to the FIR lodged in Gomti Nagar Police Station, Lucknow, the respondent board constituted an Enquiry Committee. The said committee was directed to collect all the facts in regard to the allegations made and thereby conduct a proper enquiry.

¶38

That thereafter, the said committee in its meeting held on 19.11.2019 took decision to carry out rescanning and imaging of the OMR sheets of all the candidates in the examinations in question i.e. Agriculture Supervisor, Women Supervisor, Lab Assistant, Supervisor(women) (Aanganbari worker Kota). Upon rescanning, the old scan response data was compared to the new scan response data. It is pertinent to mention here that upon rescanning and comparison, difference in marks of 7 candidates of Agriculture Supervisor'18 examination, 9 candidates of Female Supervisor'18 and 28 candidates of Lab Assistant'18 examination were found. Whereas no difference were found with respect to Supervisor (Women)'18 examination. The data in regard to the said 44 candidates (including the 18 candidates named in the report of UP Police) was inspected by the Enquiry Committee.Upon inspection, no difference was found in the response of 5 candidates. The factual report pursuant to rescanning and imaging of all the OMR sheets is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-R1/7.

¶39

That the respondent board has initiated criminal proceedings against the guilty candidates. In this regard, a letter dated 16.12.2019 has been written by the respopndent board to Police Station, Sanganer, Jaipur. A copy of the letter dated 16.12.2019 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure R1/8.”

¶40

Learned Advocate General submitted that the petitioner Pooja Godara in Writ Petition No. 19836/2019 has secured only six marks in written test and he further submitted that so far as petitioner in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14832/2019, Ram Singh Gurjar is concerned, he has been declared fail in written test and Daya Ram Choudhary even failed to appear in the written test. He further submits that one candidate Sandhya in S.B. Civil Writ

¶41

(4 of 4)

¶42

[CW-19836/2019]

¶43

Petition No. 19848/2019 has cleared the written test and she will be called for further documents’ verification.

¶44

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶45

These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the respondents conducted a detailed inquiry in this matter and found only 39 candidates guilty and I am fully satisfied with the explanation submitted by the respondents secondly, appropriate action has already been taken against the persons who were found guilty and thirdly, recruitment process cannot be stayed merely on the allegation of some persons who have already participated in the selection process and having failed in the said process, they have chosen to file these writ petitions.

¶46

In that view of the matter, these writ petitions stand dismissed.

¶47

All pending applications stand disposed of.

¶48

(INDERJEET SINGH),J

¶49

CHETNA BEHRANI /19-21

Sandhya D/O Sh. Baghi Rath v. Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandhya D/O Sh. Baghi Rath v. Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Rosamma A.M. W/O Shri Alexander Vs the State of Rajasthan

Avdhesh Kumar Sharma S/O Ghudmal Sharma Vs the Director, Sanskrit Education

Dheetendra Sharma S/O Shri Shivshankar Sharma Vs Rajasthan Patrika Private Limited

Pooja Godara D/O Sh. Subhash Godara Vs Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board

Sanjay Kumar S/O Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan

Ram Singh Gurjar S/O Sh. Tarachand Gurjar Vs Subordinate and Ministerial Services Selection Board