Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Raj) 505

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Dinesh Mehta, J.
Kuldeep Kumar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 2094 of 2019, 2247 of 2019, 2383 of 2019, 6576 of 2019, 10133 of 2019, 11295 of 2019, 11328 of 2019, 13524 of 2019, 14437 of 2019, 14599 of 2019, 16139 of 2019, 1093 of 2020, 1200 of 2020, 1419 of 2020, 1895 of 2020, 2107 of 2020, 2137 of 2020
Decided On : 20-07-2020

Advocates Appeared:
Kailash Jangid, Advocate, M.S. Shekhawat, Advocate, Sushil Bishnoi, Advocate, Shrawan Choudhary, Advocate, H.S. Choudhary, Advocate, C.P. Trivedi, Advocate, Sampat Prajapat, Advocate, Gulab Singh Naruka, Advocate, Tanwar Singh, Advocate, Ambalal, Advocate, S.R. Godara, Advocate, Kailash Choudhary, Advocate, Manish Vyas, Advocate

The authorized agency is required to prepare a select list of successful candidates and keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list to the extent of 50% of the finally intimated vacancies.

Headnote:
RULE 277A - RAJASTHAN PANCHAYATI RAJ RULES, 1996 - TEACHER GRADE-III (LEVEL-II) - SELECTION PROCESS - VACANT POSTS - RESERVE LIST - FILLING UP OF POSTS - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - COURT'S DIRECTION TO FILL UP THE POSTS.
Fact of the Case:

Petitioners, who participated in the selection process for Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) posts, challenged the respondents' decision not to fill the remaining vacant posts after the initial selection process. The petitioners argued that the respondents failed to follow the proper procedure as per Rule 277A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, and that they had not taken a conscious decision to not fill the vacant posts.
Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the respondents had failed to proceed in accordance with the rules and had not observed the required reasonableness and diligence. The Court held that the respondents' decision not to fill the remaining posts was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court also found that the respondents had not taken a conscious decision to reduce the 'intimated vacancy' and that the embargo of operating the waiting list beyond six months did not apply in the present case.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondents followed the proper procedure as per Rule 277A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, in filling up the vacant posts. 2. Whether the respondents took a conscious decision to not fill the remaining vacant posts. 3. Whether the respondents' decision not to fill the remaining posts was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted Rule 277A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, and held that the authorized agency was required to prepare a select list of successful candidates and keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list to the extent of 50% of the finally intimated vacancies. 2. The Court held that the respondents' decision not to fill the remaining posts was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, as it deprived the candidates from the waiting list of their fundamental right of consideration/appointment on the basis of their merit for the vacant seats.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and directed the respondents to fill the remaining posts of each subject, while operating category-wise reserve list. The Court also directed the respondents to ignore those candidates who had already joined pursuant to the advertisement in question and those who had not turned up either for documents verification or for joining.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Mehta, J. - Petitioners joining the present bunch of the writ petitions, have prayed appropriate directions to fill up the posts remaining vacant pursuant to the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 31.07.2018.

2. The petitioners' prayers are identical, which run as under :

"It is, therefore, most humble prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by and appropriate writ, order or direction :-

A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, any order denying to operate the fresh reserve list or any reshuffled result against the non-joined candidates or available vacant posts of Teacher Grade - III (Level-II) Hindi for Non-TSP Area in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 (Annex-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside

B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to operate the fresh reshuffle result or reserve list of Teacher Grade - III (Level-II) Hindi for total available posts by exclude the names of the selected candidates in the earlier reshuffled result, those who joined as Teacher Grade - III (Level-II) in another respective subjects as selected for the post of Teacher GradeIII (Level-II) for Non-TSP Area in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018.

C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioners in the selection process and provide the appointment as per their marks against the available vacant posts as not filled-up by ineligible and non-joined candidates for the post of Teacher Grade - III (Level-II) Hindi for Non-TSP Area in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 with all consequential benefits.

D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners,

E. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs."

3. Without burdening the judgment by taking facts from each case, the facts which are common and necessary are narrated hereunder :

3.1 An advertisement dated 31.07.2018 came to be issued by the respondents for filling up the following subjectwise posts of Teacher Grade-III :

Non-TSP-2018 Teacher Grade-III, Level-II

S.No.	Subject	Total Post
1	English	9278
2	Hindi	4762
3	Science & Maths	5728
4	Social Studies(SSt)	2700
5	Sanskrit	614
6	Sindhi	55
7	Urdu	122

3.2 The vacancies were required to be filled in accordance with Rule 266 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996'). Accordingly, it was stipulated in the advertisement that the selection would be made on the basis of marks obtained in REET/RTET examination and Graduation, however, giving 70% and 30% weightage (respectively to the marks obtained in REET/RTET and Graduation).

3.3 Based on the above criteria, the result was preapred by the respondents on 03.09.2018 and first subject-wise provisional select list was issued and category-wise candidates equal to the posts advertised were invited for documents verification.

3.4 During the documents verification, certain candidates were found ineligible, whereas some of them did not turn up at all.

3.5 Another list (hereinafter referred to as the 'second list') was issued on 21.12.2018 indicating therein that it had been issued after excluding those candidates, who did not turn up for documents verification.

3.6 Thereafter a number of lists came to be issued by the respondents between 21.02.2019 and 28.02.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'third list'(s), wherein new/reshuffled result was published. This time list was prepared after excluding the candidates, who did not appear for document verification; those whose credential were not i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

2020 Supreme(Raj) 505

The authorized agency is required to prepare a select list of successful candidates and keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list to the extent of 50% of the finally intimated vacancies.

Cases Referred (6)

Judicial Analysis