Hemendra Kumar Jangid vs State of Rajasthan

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2013 Supreme(Raj) 381

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Hemendra Kumar Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan (Bhandari, J.)
HON'BLE M.N. BHANDARI, J.
Hemendra Kumar Jangid & Ors.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15788 of 2013 and 367 other connected matters, decided on 19.12.2013

Advocates Appeared
Vigyan Shah, Ram Pratap Saini, Pradeep Mathur, Vijay Pathak, Vinod Singhal, S.S. Naruka, Ashwini Jaiman, Anoop Dhand, Tanveer Ahmed, Sunil Kumar Jain, R.D. Meena, Gajender Sharma, Raj Kumar Sharma, Manish Choudhary, Suresh Kumar, C.P. Sharma, S.D. Sharma, Samay Singh, Ram Manohar Sharma, S.K. Pareek, Shashank Agrawal, Sumit Khandelwal, Sandeep Garssa, Raj Kumar Saini, Dinesh Sharma, J.M. Saxena, Sunil Kumar Singodiya, Udai Bhan Singh, Ashish Saksena, J.R. Choudhary, M.I. Abbasi, Naveen Dhuwan, Neeraj Joshi, Tarun Choudhary, Ram Babu Sharma, Ramavtar Bochalya, RS Bhardwaj, Harsh Saini, Sanjay Mehrishi, O.P. Mishra, D.K. Bhardwaj, Khalid Mehmood, Banwari Sharma, Jeetendra Kumar Sharma, F.R. Meena, Prahlad Sharma, Kailash Kataria, Govind Gupta, Rajendra Yadav, Mohit Gupta, Manish Sharma, Raghunandan Sharma, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Raj Kumar Goyal, Amit Singh Shekhawat, N.K. Singhal, D.S. Dhariwal, Rajesh Bhamboo, Vijay Punia, Sanjay Khedar, Rameshwar Sharma, Mukesh Bijarnia, Hemendra Goyal, Rajendra Yadav, Praveen Sharma, Kailash Sharma, Amit Kumar Gupta, Balveer Singh Beniwal, S.N. Meena, Hoshiya Singh Arya, Nidhi Khandelwal, T.L. Pandey, Raj Kumar Kasana, S.K. Beniwal, Dharmendra Agrawal, Mahendra Nahar, Rajeev Sogarwal, R.B. Mathur, R.K. Saini, Manoj Avasthi, Arvind Kumar Arora, R.K. Gauttam, Vijay Dutt Sharma, Vikas Kabra, Poonam Chand Bhandari, Praveen Balwada, Himanshu Jain, Pradeep Malik, Bharat Yadav, Girish Khandelwal, Jaideep Singh Rathore, H.R. Kumawat, Rahul Choudhary, Ravindra Tomar, Jitendra Bajaj, Rajendra Soni, Lalit Sharma, Kartar Singh, Neeraj K Tiwari, Sajid Ali, Rajendra Prasad Sharma, Ajay Gupta, Mukesh Kumar Saini, Kapil Gupta, Aditya Mathur, Vijendra Kumar Yadav, Dheeraj Tripathi, Kuldeep Aswal, Yogesh Singhal, V.K. Sharma, Timan Singh, for Petitioners;
S.N. Kumawat, Additional Advocate General, for Respondents

Headnote:Service Matters — Termination of Services of those candidates who do not find place in the merit list after revision of result due to correction in the answer key on the opinion of expert committee — Given appointment provisionally as Teacher-Gr. III subject to decision of the Court — Working for last 11 months — Not obtained appointment by fraud or malpractice — Held — Ineligible candidates have no right to continue in service — If the court directs to continue them, it would be de hors the instructions/regulations of the N.C.T.E. — Difference is to be made between ineligible and eligible candidates — The Govt. may take decision to continue their services but it cannot be at the cost of meritorious candidates — Impugned order suffers from no illegality.
       Writ petitions disposed of with directions. (Paras 30, 57, 59, 64)
       lsok lEcU/kh ekeys & fo'ks"kK lfefr dh jk; ij mRrj dqath esa la'kks/ku ds dkj.k ifj.kke ds iqujh{k.k ds ckn ofj;rk lwph esa LFkku ugha ikus okys mu vH;fFkZ;ksa dh lsok,a lekIr djuk & U;k;ky; ds fu.kZ; ds v/;/khu f'k{kd xzsM III ds :i es vufUre :i ls fu;qfDr nh xbZ & fiNys 11 ekg ls dk;Zjr & diV ;k nqjkpkj ls fu;qfDr gkfly ugha dh & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lsok esa cus jgus dk funsZ'k nsrk gS rks ;g ,ulhVhbZ ds vuqns'kksa@fofu;eksa ds ckgj gksxk & vik= vkSj ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa esa Hksn djuk gksrk gS & mudh lsok,a tkjh j[kus dk fu.kZ; ljdkj ys ldrh gS ysfdu ;g ofj;rk izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh dher ij ugha gks ldrk & vk{ksfir vkns'k fdlh voS/kkfudrk ls xzflr ughaA ¼in la[;k 57] 59] 64½
       funsZ'kksa lfgr ;kfpdk,a fuLrkfjr dhA

Judgement Key Points

आपके द्वारा प्रस्तुत दस्तावेज़ के आधार पर, निम्नलिखित मुख्य बिंदु स्पष्ट होते हैं:

नियुक्ति केवल प्रावधिक आधार पर हुई थी और यह निश्चित नहीं था कि यह स्थायी होगी। इसलिए, यदि परिणाम में संशोधन या सुधार के कारण कर्मचारी मेरिट सूची से बाहर हो जाते हैं, तो उनका सेवा से निष्कासन उचित माना जाएगा, जब तक कि इस प्रक्रिया में कोई अनियमितता या गलतफहमी न हो (!) (!) ।
परिणाम में सुधार या पुनः मूल्यांकन के बाद यदि कोई उम्मीदवार मेरिट सूची से बाहर हो जाता है, तो उसकी सेवा समाप्त करना कानूनी रूप से सही है, खासकर जब नियुक्ति प्रावधिक आधार पर हुई हो और नियमों का उल्लंघन न किया गया हो (!) (!) (!) ।
यदि किसी कर्मचारी ने अनुचित तरीके से या धोखाधड़ी से नौकरी प्राप्त की है, तो उसकी सेवा समाप्ति का अधिकार सरकार को है, और ऐसी स्थिति में सेवा जारी रखने का आदेश देना उचित नहीं माना जाएगा (!) ।
सेवा समाप्ति के निर्णय में यदि कोई अनियमितता या भेदभाव का आरोप नहीं है, और यदि कर्मचारी ने लंबी अवधि तक सेवा दी है, तो भी यदि नियुक्ति केवल प्रावधिक थी, तो सेवा समाप्ति वैध मानी जा सकती है, बशर्ते कि यह प्रक्रिया निष्पक्ष और नियमों के अनुरूप हो (!) (!) ।
पुनर्मूल्यांकन या परिणाम में संशोधन के पश्चात यदि मेरिट सूची में बदलाव होता है और इससे अधिक योग्य उम्मीदवार सेवा में आते हैं, तो कम योग्य उम्मीदवारों को सेवा से हटाना आवश्यक हो सकता है ताकि मेरिट के आधार पर नियुक्ति का उद्देश्य पूरा हो सके। इस प्रकार, सेवा समाप्ति का निर्णय उचित माना जाएगा (!) (!) ।
यह भी ध्यान देना चाहिए कि नियुक्ति की प्रावधिक प्रकृति और कार्यकाल के आधार पर, यदि किसी कर्मचारी ने लंबे समय तक सेवा दी है और कोई अनियमितता नहीं पाई गई है, तो उसकी सेवा को सुरक्षित रखने का प्रयास किया जा सकता है, लेकिन यह अंतिम निर्णय परिस्थितियों पर निर्भर करेगा (!) (!) ।

सारांश में, यदि सेवा केवल प्रावधिक थी, परिणाम में संशोधन के बाद यदि कर्मचारी मेरिट सूची से बाहर हो जाते हैं, तो उनकी सेवा समाप्त करना कानूनी रूप से उचित माना जाएगा, बशर्ते कि प्रक्रिया निष्पक्ष और नियमों के अनुरूप हो। धोखाधड़ी या अनियमितता की स्थिति में सेवा समाप्ति का अधिकार सरकार के पास सुरक्षित है।

Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—The bunch of writ petitions involves common question of law thus were heard and decided by this common judgment.

2. The respondents issued an advertisement for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I and II). The advertisement was issued at the district level by respective Zila Parishad. The petitioners applied for the above posts and after remaining successful, were given appointment. The respondents have now issued an order dated 30.8.2013 at annexure-6 in CW 15788/2013 which provides for an action of termination of services of those candidates who do not find place in the merit list after revision of result. The revision of the merit list is due to correction in the answer key wherein certain questions were deleted or answers were modified. It was in view of the fact that after declaration of result, a controversy was raised for correctness of the questions and answers. This court issued directions on the respondents to send the matter to the expert committee. The respondents, in compliance of the order, sought opinion of the expert committee and found certain questions and answers to be incorrect. They accordingly revised the merit list. On account of revision of the merit list, it seems, petitioners are not finding place therein thus apprehending termination or have been terminated.

3. Initially, writ petitions were filed when only order dated 30.8.2013 was passed. Few writ petitions were filed after passing of the orders of termination. This court passed interim orders in favour of the petitioners in reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “Rajesh Kumar & ors etc vs. State of Bihar & ors etc” ((2013) 4 SCC 690).

4. Learned counsel for petitioners submit that selection for the post of Teacher Gr III (Level-I and II) were conducted by the respondents. The merit list was prepared based on the criteria laid down by them which include weightage of marks for Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (for short 'RTET') to the extent of 20%. The RTET was conducted in pursuance of the amendment in the Regulations by the National Council for Teacher Education (for short 'the NCTE'). As per Regulations, one is required to pass TET for appointment to the post of Teacher Gr III. The minimum qualifying marks therein are 60% for general category candidates and, for reserve category candidates, concession was provided though the matter in that regard is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is in view of the judgment of the Division Bench holding candidate to be ineligible for appointment unless he possesses 60% marks in RTET. Thus, while making appointment, it was made subject to final outcome of pending litigation.

5. After appointment, petitioners are serving in respective Zila Parishad, however, due to litigation and order of this court, result has been revised holding either certain questions or their answers to be incorrect. It was after getting report from expert committee. The revised cut off marks ousted the petitioners from merit as they are now having less marks than cut off.

6. It is further stated that revision of marks exist in the RTET also. It is in view of the fact that a dispute regarding certain questions and their answers was raised in respect of RTET also. Therein, again, the matter was sent to the expert committee and, on getting the report, result of the RTET was revised, wherein, few candidates, who earlier remained successful have been declared unsuccessful and, at the same time, other candidates who earlier remained unsuccessful are now declared successful. The termination of the petitioners has been effected due to revision of marks of RTET also.

7. Learned counsel submit that revision of answer key and marks was without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, more so when it was going to result in their termination.

8. At this stage, learned counsel submit that they are not questioning the expert committee report and correction

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2013 Supreme(Raj) 381

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURTJaipur BenchHemendra Kumar Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan (Bhandari, J.)HON'BLE M.N. BHANDARI, J.Hemendra Kumar Jangid & Ors.VersusState of Rajasthan & Anr.S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15788 of 2013 and 367 other connected matters, decided on 19.12.2013

Cases Referred (1)

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jaipur Bench
Hemendra Kumar Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan (Bhandari, J.)
HON'BLE M.N. BHANDARI, J.
Hemendra Kumar Jangid & Ors.
Versus
State of Rajasthan & Anr.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15788 of 2013 and 367 other connected matters, decided on 19.12.2013