Disposed

Shankar Singh S/O Madan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2021CW/13553/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order disposes of a writ petition seeking appointment as a Senior Teacher under the Ex-Serviceman Category for a petitioner who retired from the Indian Army after the examination was conducted but before document verification. The court follows a co-ordinate bench relying on a State Government circular allowing such candidates to be considered.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioner's candidature and recommend names of eligible and meritorious candidates within four weeks.

Shankar Singh S/O Madan Singh Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13553/2021

¶3

Shankar Singh S/o Madan Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o VPO Palwas, District Sikar, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

¶8

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

¶12

Order

¶13

03/12/2021

¶14

This writ petition has been filed seeking direction for the respondents to consider candidature of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (subject Hindi) under Ex-Serviceman Category.

¶15

The facts in brief are that the petitioner, after serving the Indian Army for a period of about 15 years, retired on 29.02.2020 on attaining the age of superannuation. He, being eligible in all respects, applied for the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II (subject Hindi) under general Ex-Serviceman Category in pursuance of advertisement dated 09.04.2018 issued by the respondent No.3. Provisional result of the examination was declared on 08.08.2019

¶16

(2 of 5) [CW-13553/2021]

¶17

wherein, the petitioner remained successful. In the final select list dated 12.03.2020, name of the petitioner did not figure as he has not acquired the status of ex-serviceman on the date of commencement of examination, i.e., 31.10.2018.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon a circular dated 21.05.2019 issued by the State Government, submitted that thereby, an ex-serviceman, if he stands retired or even has certificate of retirement containing future date as the day of retirement before the date of interview/document verification, shall be eligible for appointment in the Ex-Serviceman Category. He submitted that indisputably before the date of document verification, he stood retired with effect from 29.09.2020 and hence, could not have been denied appointment. He submitted that a co-ordinate Bench of this court has, vide its judgment dated 05.07.2021 in case of Rakesh Kumar Swami & Ors. Vs. The

¶19

Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7393/2020 dealing with an identical controversy, directed the respondents to consider the petitioners, exservicemen, for appointment in view of the circular of the Government dated 21.05.2019. He, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may also be disposed of in terms of direction issued by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Swami (supra).

¶20

Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC opposing the prayer submitted that Rule 6-B of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Amendment Rules, 2018 (for brevity, the Rules of 2018”) does not permit consideration of the candidature of an ex-serviceman for appointment if he has not acquired the status before the date of participation in the

¶21

(3 of 5)

¶22

[CW-13553/2021]

¶23

examination process but, he could not dispute that taking into consideration the circular dated 21.05.2019, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Rakesh Kumar Swami (supra) overruling objection based on Rule 6-B of the Rules of 2018, directed the respondents therein to consider candidature of the eligible petitioners’ for appointment as per their merit position.

¶24

Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

The following facts are undisputed:

¶26

(i) the petitioner stood retired from the Indian Army with effect from 29.02.2020.

¶27

(ii) The document verification, after declaration of provisional result of the examination wherein the petitioner remained successful, took place after 29.02.2020.

¶28

In view of the aforesaid admitted position, the petitioner stands entitled for the benefit under circular dated 21.05.2019 relying whereupon, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Rakesh Kumar Swami (supra), held as under:

¶29

“(1) The present application had been initially filed by the three applicants seeking their impleadment in the present writ petition as respondents.

¶30

(2)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (3)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (4) Dr. Bhati, learned counsel, contends that if the petition is allowed in terms of the circular dated 21.05.2019 (Annex.2), the rights of the applicant No.3 will be adversely affected. According to her the circular (Annex.2) issued by the State Government is not in conformity with the notification dated 17.4.2018, by which Rule 6B has been inserted in Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’ or ‘the Rules of 1988’)

¶31

(5) In considered opinion of this Court, once the State Government has issued a circular and has given its own interpretation of the notification, the

¶32

(4 of 5)

¶33

[CW-13553/2021]

¶34

applicant cannot come in way of the petitioners who claim relief flowing from the circular issued by the State Government.

¶35

(6) The application is therefore, rejected.

¶36

(7) Needless to observe that if the applicant wishes to challenge the circular on the grounds available to him, the disposal of the present application shall not come in his way.

¶37

SBCWP No.7393/2020:

¶38

(8) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners invited Court’s attention towards the amendment brought in the Rules of 1988 vide notification dated 17.4.2018 and submitted that by way of Rule 6B, ex-servicemen, who have moved application for retirement have been permitted to take part in the recruitment process.

¶39

(9) While maintaining that the petitioners, having resigned before submitting application forms are not only eligible for consideration, but also entitled to be offered appointment, learned counsel submitted that in light of circular dated 21.5.2019 (Annex.2) issued by the Personnel Department of the State Government, there remains no doubt about petitioners’ eligibility. He argued that petitioners’ case is squarely covered by the circular and thus, a direction be issued to the respondent – RPSC to consider their candidature in terms of the notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019. (10) Mr. Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that an additional affidavit has been filed by the petitioners, placing on record copies of the letters dated 5.8.2020 and 12.4.20212 issued by the State Government.

¶40

(11) He submitted that though petitioners’ candidature has been considered by the respondent-RPSC in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 19.8.2020, however, for no reason (perhaps on account of pendency of the present writ petition) respondent – RPSC has not recommended their name.

¶41

(12) Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondentRPSC argued that though the State Government has issued circular (Annex.2) dated 21.5.2019, yet doubt(s) regarding eligibility of the candidates is not yet clear.

¶42

(13) In the opinion of this Court, once the State Government itself has issued a clarificatory circular dated 21.5.2019 and clarified its stand about the notification dated 17.4.2018, the respondentRPSCa recruiting agency is bound by the same. It cannot take a contrary view. (14) The respondent-RPSC is, therefore, directed to consider petitioners’ case in the light of notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019 and recommend names of those petitioners, who according to these notification/circular are eligible and of course meritorious and otherwise eligible.

¶43

(5 of 5)

¶44

[CW-13553/2021]

¶45

(15) If respondent-RPSC is of the view that any of the petitioners is not eligible in the light of the notification dated 17.4.2018 and circular dated 21.5.2019, it shall pass a speaking order under the intimation to the concerned petitioner, against which, such petitioner’s right to take legal remedies shall stand reserved.

¶46

(16) Needfull be done within a period of four weeks from today.

¶47

(17) The writ petition as well as all pending interlocutory applications are disposed of accordingly”.”

¶48

In view thereof, this writ petition stands disposed of in terms of direction of a co-ordinate Bench of this court in case of Rakesh Kumar Swami (supra) which shall apply mutatis mutandis in the present case.

¶49

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶50

Sudha/57

Shankar Singh S/O Madan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shankar Singh S/O Madan Singh v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukesh Sharma S/O Shri Deen Dayal Sharma, Vs the State of Rajasthan

Dinesh Kumar Son of Shri Kishori Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashu Kumar S/O Shri Harpal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Suresh Chand S/O Guganram Vs State of Rajasthan

Jitesh Kumar Jain S/O Ajtendra Vijay Jain Vs the State of Rajasthan

Habibur Rahman S/O Late Shri Laqueman Vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.