Dismissed

Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary) v. Urmila Devi

Rajasthan HC7 Jan 2020SAW/924/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a special civil appeal regarding defective recruitment in the Elementary Education Department, the Court held that a fresh advertisement issued before the completion of the earlier process does not render the earlier wait list invalid. The appeal was dismissed, with a direction to operate the wait list for vacant posts.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed. Direction to operate the wait list for vacant posts against the advertisement dated 6.7.2016 as revised vide advertisement dated 11.9.2017.

Principal Secretary Education Department… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 924/2019

¶3

Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary), Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶4

The Director/Commissioner, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶5

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶6

----Appellants

¶7

Versus

¶8

Urmila Devi D/o Babu Singh W/o Rajratan Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Plot Not. 7 Sawroop Narayan Vatika Gokulpura, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur. (Raj.).

¶9

Karishama D/o Praveen Kumar W/o Lalit Kumar Vyas, R/o 3-A-86 Gupteshwar Nagar Hiran Magri Sector-7, Udaipur. (Raj.).

¶10

Vishwas Jain S/o Late Sh. Jyoti Swarup Jain, Aged About 36 Years, R/o C-5 Arvind Nagar, Air Force Area, Post Office Aerodrome, Jodhpur. (Raj.).

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sushil Bishnoi

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. INDRAJIT MAHANTY HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶14

Judgment

¶15

07/01/2020

¶16

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶17

There is delay of 164 days in filing the present appeal.

¶18

The issue in question arose on account of advertisement dated 6.7.2016, revised on 11.09.2017, whereby

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

[SAW-924/2019]

¶21

the selection process was initiated under the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1996’).

¶22

The limited prayer of the writ petitioners/respondents was that after the selection process crossed the first stage, numbers of seats remained vacant and such vacant seats ought to have been filled up against the wait list of the selected candidates, in accordance with Rule 227A of the Rules of 1996. 5. Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General submits that after the advertisement in question was being acted upon, another fresh advertisement was issued on 31.07.2018, whereby recruitment process was initiated afresh, and thus, the earlier recruitment process came to an end, and no vacant seat could have been filled from amongst the wait listed selected candidates, as the vacancies in question stood lapsed. Learned Additional Advocate General has also relied upon the circular dated 26.04.2018 issued by the State whereby, it has been stipulated that once the fresh process of recruitment starts, the whole selection process previously held alongwith its wait list stand lapsed, and thus, rest of the vacancies have to be filled up only by conducting the fresh process of recruitment.

¶23

Mr. Sushil Bishnoi, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners/respondents, however, submits that had the advertisement for the post in question been issued after completion of the selection process arising out of the revised advertisement dated 11.09.2017, then it would have been a different proposition, but it is not a case whereby, the exercise in question was discontinued and in fact, most of the appointments were made only after initiation of fresh advertisement dated 31.07.2018.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[SAW-924/2019]

¶26

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that the direction given by the learned Single Judge is limited to the extent that Proviso to Clause (vi) of Rule 227A of the Rules of 1996 shall be operated by the concerned authorities against the vacant posts, if any, qua the posts advertised, and reserved list exists. This Court has taken note of the additional affidavit filed by the State which clearly mentions that as against 4960 posts advertised vide the advertisement dated 6.7.2016, as revised vide advertisement dated 6.7.2016, only 3943 candidates joined, and thus, 826 posts remained vacant, even after the fresh advertisement dated 31.7.2018. Thus, the issuance of the later advertisement dated 31.7.2018, even before completion of the earlier process, negates the application of the aforementioned circular dated 26.4.2018.

¶27

In light of the aforesaid factual matrix, the impugned order does not call for any interference and the appeal stands dismissed accordingly. However, the appellants are directed to operate the wait list only to the extent of the posts vacant as on date, in pursuance of advertisement dated 6.7.2016 as revised vide advertisement dated 11.9.2017. All pending applications also stand dismissed.

¶28

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶29

(INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ

¶30

1-Zeeshan/-

Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary) v. Urmila Devi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Principal Secretary Education Department (Elementary) v. Urmila Devi

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

Vijay Singh Gehlot Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Kusum Lata Joshi

Shanker Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Chokhram Vs State of Rajasthan

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Jodhpur Vs Om Prakash Moondra

Madhav Narik Sahakari Bank Ltd. Vs U.O.I.and Ors.