Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 482
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Madan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 8108 of 2019, 8726 of 2019, 8657 of 2019, 8682 of 2019, 8700 of 2019, 8719 of 2019, 9022 of 2019, 9389 of 2019, 10475 of 2019, 10543 of 2019, 10724 of 2019, 12718 of 2019, 13382 of 2019
Decided On : 08-07-2020
Lokesh Mathur, Advocate, H.S. Sidhu, Advocate, Rishabh Tayal, Advocate, A.D. Ujjwal, Advocate, Jhamak Nagda, Advocate, M.S. Godara, Advocate, Tirupati Chandra, Advocate, S.S. Nirban, Advocate, Akshay Nagori, Advocate, G.S. Panwar, Advocate, Manoj Joshi, Advocate, Sanjay Pandit, Advocate, Suniel Purohit, Advocate
The striking down of Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012 rendered the cancellation of appointments of the petitioners unsustainable, and the court exercised its discretion in favor of the petitioners, considering the nature of the post and the immateriality of the suppressed information.
Headnote:
MUNICIPALITIES - SAFAI EMPLOYEES SERVICE - APPOINTMENT - CANCELLATION - WRONG AFFIDAVIT - CONCEALMENT OF INFORMATION - RULE 9A OF RAJASTHAN MUNICIPALITIES (SAFAI EMPLOYEES SERVICE) RULES, 2012 - STRUCK DOWN - APPOINTMENTS RESTORED.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the cancellation of their appointments as Safai employees due to furnishing wrong affidavits and concealing information about their children, violating Rule 9A of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that since Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012, which provided for disqualification for appointment on the post in question, had been struck down, the cancellation of appointments could not be sustained.
Issues: Whether the cancellation of appointments of the petitioners was justified despite the striking down of Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the precedent of Avtar Singh v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court held that an employer has the discretion to terminate services due to suppression or false information, but this discretion must be exercised reasonably and with due regard to the facts of the case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders of cancellation of appointments, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioners in service with all consequential benefits.
JUDGMENT
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - In all these writ petitions, the petitioners challenged the order impugned dated 29.03.2019, whereby their appointments as Safai employee were cancelled on account of furnishing wrong affidavit and concealment of information regarding their children, particularly, for violation of Rule 9A of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2012').
2. Though the present writ petitions have been reserved for judgment on different date(s), but looking to the commonality of the issue involved herein, they have been considered analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred claiming, in sum and substance, the following reliefs:
"a) by an appropriate writ, order or directions, impugned order dated 29.03.2019 (Annex.5) cancelling the appointment of petitioner may be declared illegal and be quashed and set aside;
b) further by an appropriate writ order or direction the respondents may be directed to reinstate the petitioner as safai employee with all consequential benefits;
c) Any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper be passed in favour of the petitioner.
d) Costs of this writ petition may kindly be allowed to the petitioner."
4. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being taken from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8726/2019, for the purpose of the present adjudication.
5. The Department of Local Self Government, Government of Rajasthan issued an advertisement bearing No.01/2018 for recruitment to the post of Safai Employees. The Rules of 2012 provided for recruitment and other conditions of service for the post of Safai employee. Rule 9A, as inserted on 11.04.2018 in the said Rules of 2012, provided for disqualification for appointment of a candidate, who had more than two children on or after 01.06.2002, on the post in question, and the same fact has been concealed by the petitioner. The said Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012 reads as under:
"9A. Disqualification for appointment.- No candidate shall be eligible for appointment to the service who has more than two children on or after 01.06.2002. Provided that-
(i) the candidate having more than two children shall not be deemed to be disqualified for appointment so long as the number of children he/she has on 1st June, 2002, does not increase.
(ii) where a candidate has only one child from earlier delivery but more than one child are born out of a single subsequent delivery, the children so born shall be deemed to be one entity while counting the total number of children.
(iii) the provision of this rule shall not be applicable to the appointment of a widow of the deceased employee on compassionate ground.
(iv) while counting the total number of children of a candidate, the child born from earlier delivery and having disability, shall not be counted.
(v) any candidate who performed remarriage which is not against any law and before such remarriage he is not disqualified for appointment under this rule, he shall not be disqualified if any child is born out of single delivery from such remarriage."
6. The petitioner, after participating in the selection process, was issued appointment order on 01.09.2018. However, the respondents cancelled her appointment on 29.03.2019, on account of the fact that she had more than two children after 01.06.2002, and the same fact has been concealed by the petitioner.
7. A Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court, vide judgment dated 02.04.2019 decided D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16572/2018 (Anita & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), whereby Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012 was struck down and any consequential quashing of appointments were set aside, while the concerned litigants were directed to be given appointment with all consequential benefits.
8. Heard Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Mr. Rishabh Tayal, Mr. A.D. Ujjwal, Mr. Jhamak
