The Rajasthan High Court upheld the Single Judge's order quashing termination of teacher candidates appointed based on initial merit list, whose services were cancelled after revised merit list. Since no fraud or misrepresentation was attributed to them and they had worked over five years, termination was held unjust and unfair.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 347/2022
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondent
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 278/2022
(2 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Appellants
Versus
Mayanka Dixit D/o Shri Ratnesh Kumar Dixit, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 8 F, Road No. 3, Santosh Nagar, Gayriyawas, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 308/2022
----Appellants
Versus
Sohan Lal Vishnoi S/o Shri Nawala Ram, Aged About 40 Years, Vpo Kelansar, Tehsil Baap District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 320/2022
(3 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
Division, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
Bhatt Singh S/o Shri Man Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Dakha, Tehsil Sindhari, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 343/2022
----Appellants
Versus
Leela D/o Shri Kishana Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Baipass Road, Baytu, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 397/2022
(4 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Appellants
Versus
Bal Kishan S/o Shri Mool Chand, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Mandlakhurd, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 536/2022
----Appellants
Versus
Bhanwar Lal S/o Shri Bharu Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Vpo Khokshar, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer, Rajasthan
----Respondent
(5 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Appellants
Versus
Surendra Singh Charan S/o Shri Sajjan Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Uguna Bass, Village Mathania, Tehsil Tinwari, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 635/2022
----Appellants
Versus
Manju Joshi D/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Vpo Tihari, Via Srinagar, Tehsil Nasirabad, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
(6 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 660/2022
----Appellants
Versus
Sonu Soni D/o Shri Prakash Chandra, Aged About 28 Years, Mainiyo Ka Chowak, Badi Basi, Pushkar, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 716/2022
The Secretary, Rpsc, Ajmer, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
(7 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 759/2022
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 806/2022
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
(8 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 840/2022
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 841/2022
The Secretary, Raj. Public Service Comm., Ajmer, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
(9 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 842/2022
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 843/2022
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
(10 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 845/2022
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 915/2022
(11 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
The Secretary, Rajasthan State Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1045/2022
The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Appellant
Versus
(12 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : | Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG a/w Mr.Rishi Soni. Mr. Mahesh Thanvi |
|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | Dr. Nikhil Dungawat a/w Mr. Ravindra Singh |
| Mr. Kailash Jangid | ||
| Mr. Sidharth Karwasara | ||
| Mr. Vigyan Shah on VC |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI
Judgment
Reportable
19/12/2023
1.1. Though most of the instant special appeals have been preferred by the State, but since in some of the instant appeals, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is the appellant, therefore, the same shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘RPSC’ in the present judgment.
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
(13 of 30)
“It is therefore most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Special Appeal Writ may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 28.01.2022 as passed by Learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.15381/2018 may kindly be set aside and the writ petition as preferred by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed.
3.1. The RPSC issued admit cards to the respondents-candidates and conducted the examination for the post in question; subsequent thereto, the RPSC issued the answer keys of the examination. Thereafter, the RPSC declared the results on 06.02.2018, and published a provisional list of selected candidates for the post in question, as per which, the respondents-candidates were falling under the respective cut off criteria, and thus, were declared successful in the examination in question.
3.2. Subsequently, the RPSC directed the respondent-candidates to appear for documents verification; in pursuance whereof, they appeared for the same, and the documents were duly verified by the office of the RPSC. After the completion of the prescribed
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
(14 of 30)
process, the appellant-Deputy Director, Secondary Education issued appointment order(s) to the respective respondentscandidates, while allotting them the place of posting; the respondents-candidates duly joined at their respective place of posting.
3.3. In the meantime, some of the unsuccessful candidates preferred a writ petition (SBCWP No.3083/2018 – Rameshvri
Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. alongwith other connected petitions) before the Hon’ble Court, calling into question the correctness of some of the questions and their answers, in relation to the recruitment process in question. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Hon’ble Court vide common order dated 05.05.2018, while directing the constitution of expert committee, afresh, for re-examining the correctness of the answers to certain questions. The RPSC constituted the expert committee, and after submission of the report by the said Committee, the RPSC issued the revised results on 17.09.2018 prescribing fresh cut off criteria/merit list, as per which, the respondents-candidates did not fall within the cut off criteria/merit.
3.4. Subsequently, the appellant-Director, Secondary Education,
Bikaner issued an order dated 27.09.2018, whereby the appointments of the respondent-candidates stood cancelled and their services were accordingly terminated. Thereafter, the respondent-candidates filed writ petitions before this Hon’ble Court, which was allowed vide impugned orders dated 28.01.2022 & 14.02.2022.
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
(15 of 30)
(16 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
directions issued by this Hon’ble Court. It was also submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vikas Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 36493650 of 2020 decided on 07.12.2020) arising from the same advertisement in question, upheld the selection list dated 21.05.2019 and waiting list dated 22.05.2019 prepared on the basis of revised answer key.
9.1 Learned counsel also submit that it is a settled law that the State functionaries cannot allow appointment in excess of the advertised vacancies, and if it is so done, the same would tantamount to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Das Vs State of Assam (2012) 5 SCC 559 and Pankajeshwar Sharma Vs State of J & K (2021) 2 SCC 188.
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
(17 of 30)
10.1. In support of such submissions, reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 .
(18 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
candidates, on the sole basis of issuance of revised merit list, was not justified in law, and therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has rightly granted the reliefs to the respondentscandidates.
(19 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
constitutional rights of the respondent-candidates, was rightly quashed and set aside by the learned Single Judge.
(a) Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 690;
(b) Vikas Pratap Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 494;
(c) Mohan Lal Kadwasra Vs Raj. State Road Transport Corp. 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 42;
(d) Rishal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81;
(e) Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 424;
(f) Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 309;
(20 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
06.02.2018, as per which, the respondents-candidates were falling within the cut off criteria/merit.
18.1.Thereafter, the respondent-RPSC verified the documents of the successful candidates, including the respondents-candidates, whereupon, the appellant-Deputy Director, Secondary Education issued the respective appointment orders in favour of the respondent-candidates. Upon challenge being laid by some of the unsuccessful candidates, as mentioned above, this Hon’ble Court directed constitution of the expert committee, which was duly constituted by the RPSC; upon submission of the report by the said Committee, the RPSC revised the cut off criteria/merit list and declared the revised results on 17.09.2018, as per which, the respondents-candidates were not falling within the cut off criteria/ merit. Subsequently, the appellant vide order dated 27.09.2018 cancelled the appointments of the respondents-candidates, followed by termination of their services, against which the respondent-candidates filed the writ petitions before this Hon’ble Court, which were allowed vide the impugned orders in light of the judgment rendered in the case of Shyam Kumar (Supra) .
“21. Shri Rao would submit that the case of these appellants requires sympathetic consideration by this Court, since the appointment of appellants on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination cannot be said to have been affected by any malpractice or
(21 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation on their part. The ouster of 26 appellants from service after having successfully undergone training and serving the respondent State for more than three years now would cause undue hardship to them and ruin their lives and careers. He would further submit that an irretrievable loss in terms of life and livelihood would be caused to eight appellants amongst them who have now become overaged and have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examinations. He would place reliance upon the decision of this Court in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar [(2013) 4 SCC 690 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 359 : (2013) 3 Scale 393] wherein this Court has directed the respondent State to re-evaluate the answer scripts on the basis of correct model answers key and sympathetically considered the case of such candidates who, after having being appointed in terms of erroneous evaluation and having served the State for considerable length of time, would not find place in the fresh merit list drawn after re-evaluation and directed the respondent State against ousting of such candidates and further that they be placed at the bottom of the fresh merit list. 22. The pristine maxim of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) has never lost its temper over the centuries and it continues to dwell in spirit and body of service law jurisprudence. It is settled law that no legal right in respect of appointment to a said post vests in a candidate who has obtained the employment by fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide. (See Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [(1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520 : (1990) 14 ATC 766], S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath [(1994) 1 SCC 1] and Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162 : (1996) 32 ATC 94] .) It is also settled law that a person appointed erroneously on a post must not reap the benefits of wrongful appointment jeopardising the interests of the meritorious and worthy candidates.
(22 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
However, in cases where a wrongful or irregular appointment is made without any mistake on the part of the appointee and upon discovery of such error or irregularity the appointee is terminated, this Court has taken a sympathetic view in the light of various factors including bona fide of the candidate in such appointment and length of service of the candidate after such appointment (see Vinodan T. v. University of Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 606] ;State of U.P. v. Neeraj Awasthi [(2006) 1 SCC 667 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 190] ).
27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon reevaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service.
28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.
29. Accordingly, we direct the respondent State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing
(23 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation”.
“9. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh’s case (supra), where this Court considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the Appellants-therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the Appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh’s case (supra) , we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ
(24 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are working at
present .”
“20. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ petitioners, Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the appellants should they be found to fall below the ‘cut-off’ mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other
(25 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re-evaluation can determine the inter se position of the writ petitioners and the appellants in these appeals, the result of such reevaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line. 21. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a reevaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list”.
(26 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
“6. In the present case, we find considerable substance in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellants that having received the complaints on 13.6.2013, prior to the issuance of appointment letters of the appellants-petitioner dated 26.6.2013, the Corporation did not act promptly in getting the complaints examined. The Committee was constituted on 21.8.2013, and on receipt of the report from such Committee, the results were revised on 19.9.2013. In between, on 6.8.2013, the Corporation had advertised 1428 vacancies on the posts of Conductor, which included 89 vacancies, on which the appointees of 2012 selections, in which the appellants had participated and were selected, had not joined. It is submitted that apart from the benefit of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that the services of the persons appointed through competitive examination in accordance with the Rules, should not be terminated on the ground of preparation of erroneous results, for which nothing can be attributed to them, the appellants-petitioners were deprived of the chance of applying in the subsequent recruitment to the posts, which were advertised on 6.8.2013, and on which date, they were working with the Corporation in pursuance of earlier selections.
7. We do not find any good ground to deny the appellants-petitioners the benefit of the rule of law, serving principles of equity, developed by the Supreme Court in which it is clearly stated that it will be highly unjust and grossly unfair to terminate the services of those persons, who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. Their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to them nor cause any undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.
(27 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
9. We do not find any substance in the contention of the counsel appearing for the Corporation that the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi (2006 (4) SCC 1), providing that all appointments in public services should be made serving the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, would in any way deny the appellants the benefit of the principles of equity in allowing them to continue, when they were selected and appointed in the selections under the statutory Rules and were terminated on the revision of the select list.
10. In view of the pronouncement of the law by the Supreme Court, which serves the principles of equity to protect the appointments of those persons, who have no role in the revision of the results, the Special Appeals are allowed. The orders by which the services of the appellants-petitioners were terminated are set aside. The appellants however will not be reinstated in service.....”
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
(28 of 30)
25.1.This Court also observes that the revised cut off/merit list was issued, after submission of the report of the expert committee which may have been justified, but the same, in the factual matrix of the present case, cannot be said to be a cogent ground so as to terminate the services of the respondents-candidates, who are working on the post in question for last more than 5 years, more particularly, in light of the fact that the respondents-candidates, for seeking the appointment on the post in question, did not commit any fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or concealment of the material facts .
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
(29 of 30)
part of the appellants was nothing but infringement of the constitutional rights of the respondents-candidates. Therefore, the learned Single Judge of this Hon’ble Court has rightly passed the impugned orders, more particularly, when the same are in conformity with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 27. This Court also observes that in case the exercise of revision of the cut off criteria/merit due to some erroneous answers to certain question was undertaken by the appellants prior to according appointments to the respondents-candidates on the post in question, the same would have been justified, but since such an exercise has been conducted by the appellants much later after according such appointments, the same cannot be said to be justified in law, more particularly, without there being any fault on the part of the respondent-candidates, who are working on the post in question for last more than 5 years, and even if after all this, the exercise so undertaken by the appellants is accorded validity, the same would not only affect the interest of the respondents-candidates, but would also affect the financial security of their dependants. This is more so when, with the passage of time, some of the respondents-candidates have crossed the age limit to participate in the public employment exercise; in addition thereto, in case the impugned action of the appellants is upheld, the working experience of five years acquired by the respondents-candidates in the present recruitment would also not create any positive impact upon them in their future prospects.
(30 of 30)
[2023:RJ-JD:45030-DB]
[SAW-347/2022]
(RAJENDRA PRAKASH SONI),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
75-94-SKant/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the termination of the respondents-candidates, who were appointed following due procedure and based on initial merit list, could be justified solely on ground of revised merit list issued afte
Whether Condition No. 10 in the appointment orders, subjecting appointments to outcome of pending cases, entitled the State to terminate services of candidates who had worked for over five years witho
Whether the principles of equity, as laid down in Vikas Pratap Singh, Rajesh Kumar, and Anmol Kumar Tiwari, protecting innocent appointees of erroneous evaluation, applied to the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shyam Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶285
Shyam Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.C.W.P. No. 22564/2018, decided on 03.01.2022)
Vikas Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶293
Vikas Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 36493650 of 2020 decided on 07.12.2020)
Arun Das Vs State of AssamDistinguished¶296
Arun Das Vs State of Assam (2012) 5 SCC 559 · Who else cites this
Pankajeshwar Sharma Vs State of J & KDistinguished¶296
Pankajeshwar Sharma Vs State of J & K (2021) 2 SCC 188 · Who else cites this
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors.Distinguished¶301
Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi & Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors.Relied on¶316
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Bihar & Ors. (2013) 4 SCC 690 · Who else cites this
Vikas Pratap Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.Relied on¶317
Vikas Pratap Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. (2013) 14 SCC 494 · Who else cites this
Mohan Lal Kadwasra Vs Raj. State Road Transport Corp.Relied on¶318
Mohan Lal Kadwasra Vs Raj. State Road Transport Corp. 2015 SCC OnLine Raj 42 · Who else cites this
Rishal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service CommissionReferred¶319
Rishal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2018) 8 SCC 81 · Who else cites this
Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors.Relied on¶320
Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand & Ors., (2021) 5 SCC 424 · Who else cites this
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Referred¶321
Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2021) 2 SCC 309 · Who else cites this
Ramdhan Kumawat v. State of RajasthanReferred¶322
Ramdhan Kumawat v. State of Rajasthan, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 4667 · Who else cites this
Barun Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors.Referred¶323
Barun Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand and Ors. 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1093 · Who else cites this
Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. (Supra)Relied on¶331
Vikas Pratap Singh's case (supra)Relied on¶349
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. (Supra)Relied on¶355
Mohan Lal Kadwasra (Supra)Relied on¶361
State Of Rajasthan
Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur Division
District Education Officer, Secondary Education, Barmer
Pharsa Ram Kalirana
Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Rajendra Prakash Soni
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
