2015 Supreme(Raj) 1941
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Gopal Krishan Vyas, J.
Harish Nagpal - Appellant
Versus
State & Others - Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2830 of 2001.
Decided On : 17-11-2015
Advocates:
For the Petitioner:Nitin Trivedi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Suman Porwal, Dy. Govt. Counsel, Khet Singh, RPSC.
The purpose of a waiting list is to fill up vacancies advertised in the event of non-joining of selected candidates from the main list. The currency of the waiting list starts from the date of issuance of appointment letters to the selected candidates and expires after six months.
Headnote:
RAJASTHAN MEDICAL (COLLEGIATE BRANCH) RULES, 1962 - RULE 20 - WAITING LIST - APPOINTMENT - RIGHT TO APPOINTMENT - CURRENCY OF WAITING LIST - EXTENSION OF JOINING PERIOD - REQUISITION FOR NAMES FROM WAITING LIST - ACTION OF RPSC IN NOT RECOMMENDING NAME OF PETITIONER FOR APPOINTMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner applied for the post of Sr. Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine in response to an advertisement issued by RPSC. Petitioner's name was included in the reserve list at Serial No. 2 in the General category candidate. Two vacancies remained unfilled due to the death of one candidate and non-joining of another candidate. RPSC recommended the name of a candidate from the waiting list for one vacancy but did not recommend the petitioner's name for the other vacancy on the ground that the currency of the waiting list had expired.
Finding of the Court:
The purpose of preparing a reserve list is to provide appointment to candidates in the event of non-joining of any candidate from the main list. The action of RPSC in not recommending the petitioner's name for appointment is not sustainable in law because the vacancy was in existence and a requisition was sent by the Government to send the names from the waiting list.
Issues: Whether the petitioner has a right to appointment against the unfilled vacancy.
Ratio Decidendi: The purpose of a waiting list is to fill up vacancies advertised in the event of non-joining of selected candidates from the main list. The currency of the waiting list starts from the date of issuance of appointment letters to the selected candidates and expires after six months. In the present case, the vacancy was in existence and a requisition was sent by the Government to send the names from the waiting list. The RPSC did not recommend the petitioner's name on the ground that the currency of the waiting list had expired. However, the RPSC itself sought clarification from the Government regarding the vacancy, which means that no decision was taken by the RPSC not to send a name from the waiting list. Therefore, the denial of appointment to the petitioner due to inaction on the part of RPSC is in contravention of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of J & K v. Satpal and the judgment of this Court in the case of Ms. Sangeeta.
Final Decision: The writ petition is allowed. RPSC is directed to recommend the petitioner's name for appointment on the post of Sr. Demonstrator in Forensic medicine from the waiting list within 15 days. The State Government shall consider the case of the petitioner to provide appointment on the post of Sr. Demonstrator in Forensic medicine from the date of availability of vacancy due to non-joining of Dr. Neelam Agarwal, within a period of one month thereafter, with all consequential benefits except backwages.
JUDGMENT
1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"It is therefore, most respectfully and humbly prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, unfilled one vacant post of Senior Demonstrator in forensic medicine in pursuance of the advertisement no. 4/98-99 dated 16.02.1999 (Annex. 3) and select list dt 02.06.2000 (Annex.4) may kindly be kept vacant to protect the right of the petitioner."
3. As per facts of the case, petitioner being eligible for appointment on the post of Sr. Demonstrator in Forensic Medicine applied in pursuance of advertisement dated 16.02.1999 issued by respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'RPSC' hereinafter) whereby eight posts of Sr. Demonstrator in the subject of Forensic Medicine were advertised.
4. In the advertisement No. 4/98-99 issued on 16.02.1999, reservation was also provided as per rules for recruitment on the post in question, more specifically one post was kept reserved for Scheduled Caste candidate and one for Scheduled Tribe candidate and two posts were kept reserved for backward class candidates and remaining four posts were advertised for General category candidates. Petitioner being eligible candidate was called for interview by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and after facing interview, the Commissioner published list of selected candidates in order of merit and names were recommended to the Government as per merit vide letter dated 02.06.2000 which is placed on record as Annex.4. The name of petitioner was included in the reserve list at Serial No. 2 in the General category candidate. It is stated in the writ petition that one selected candidate Dr. Mahesh Khadgawat whose name was at Serial No. 3 in the main list passed away and one another candidate Dr. Neelam Agarwal whose name was at Serial No. 5 of the main list did not join on the post of Sr. Demonstrator in Forensic medicine, therefore, two posts remained unfilled from select list recommended for appointment by the Commission to the Government.
5. The State Government sent a requisition to the respondent Commissioner for sending names from the waiting list, therefore, name of Dr. Rahul Jain who was at Serial No. 1 of waiting list was recommended by the Commission and he was given appointment against unfilled vacancy for which the name of Dr. Mahesh Khadgawat was recommended for appointment because he died before issuance of appointment order.
6. A representation was filed by the petitioner before the respondent Commission with the prayer that his name may also be recommended to the State Government because due to non-joining of another candidate Dr. Neelam Agarwal, vacancy is available but he was verbally told that Commission has sent a fax message to the State Government for sending the roster and after receiving the roster, his name will be considered.
7. As per facts, respondent No. 1 Department of Medical and Health Services sent requisition to the Commission vide letter dated 07.12.2000 for recommending three names from the waiting list to fill up the available vacant posts of Sr. Demonstrator but despite sending the requisition by the Government, names were not recommended by the respondent Commission, thereafter, the petitioner gave a registered notice to the respondents to recommend his name for appointment but no reply was given to the petitioner.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Medical (Collegiate Branch) Rules, 1962, there is provision to prepare a waiting list to the extent of 50% of the advertised vacancies and to keep the name of suitable candidates in the reserve list to send names upon requisition received by the Government for six months from the date on which the original list is forwarded by the Commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly out of eight candidates recommended by the RPSC, two vacancies remained unfilled
Click Here to Read the rest of this document