2023 Supreme(Raj) 34
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
VIJAY BISHNOI, MANOJ KUMAR GARG, JJ.
Kamlesh Kumar S/o Shri Venilal – Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan – Respondent
D.B. Special Appeal Writ Nos. 94, 98, 101, 112 of 2022
Decided On : 03-01-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Manoj Bhandari, Aniket Tater, Nupur Bhati, Sandeep Soni.
For the Respondents: M.S. Singhvi, K.S. Lodha, Pankaj Sharma, Dhairyadiya Singh Rathore, Deepika Soni, Tanwar Singh, VLS Rajpurohit, Vikram Singh, Tarun Joshi, Shambhoo Singh Rathore.
Failure to implead necessary parties, failure to challenge the validity of the corrigendum, and participation in the selection process without raising objections estopped the appellants from questioning the selection process.
Headnote:
Selection Process - RPSC - Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 - 19.05.2018 - 04.06.2018 - 01.04.2018 - 09.04.2018 - 16.06.2018 - 01.06.2018 - 01.04.2018 - 29.07.2019 - 08.08.2019 - 02.09.2019 - 16.03.2020 - 12.02.2020 - 27.02.2020 - 16.03.2020 - 18.02.2022 - 94/2022 - 101/2022 - 98/2022 - 23.03.2021 - 08.11.2021
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged the selection process for the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II in various subjects for TSP areas under the Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014. The RPSC issued an advertisement on 09.04.2018, and after the declaration of the result, the appellants filed writ petitions challenging the inclusion of candidates from newly included TSP areas and the validity of the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to implead necessary parties, did not challenge the validity of the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018, and were estopped from questioning the inclusion of candidates from the newly included TSP areas. The court dismissed the writ petitions on these grounds.
Issues: Non-impleadment of necessary parties, failure to challenge the validity of the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018, estoppel from questioning the inclusion of candidates from newly included TSP areas, belated filing of writ petitions, and availability of alternate relief regarding increase of post.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants' failure to implead necessary parties, challenge the corrigendum, and their participation in the selection process without raising objections estopped them from questioning the selection process. The court also noted that the petitions were highly belated.
Final Decision: The appeals were dismissed, and the court found no merit in the appellants' arguments.
JUDGMENT :
1. These special appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved with the judgment dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in various writ petitions, whereby the writ petitions have been dismissed for the reasons; (i) non-impleadment of necessary parties; (ii) failure on the part of the appellants in questioning the validity of the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018; (iii) the appellants being estopped from questioning the validity of inclusion of candidates of the newly included TSP area having been participated in the selection process after issuance of corrigendum dated 04.06.2018; (iv) the writ petitions being highly belated and (v) alternate relief regarding increase of post being not available.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the RPSC issued advertisement dated 09.04.2018 inviting applications for the post of Senior Teacher Grade-II in various subjects for TSP areas under the provisions of Rajasthan Scheduled Areas Subordinate, Ministerial and Class-IV Service (Recruitment and Other Service Conditions) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 2014’) for different number of posts in different subjects. The written examinations were conducted and merit of the candidates was prepared on the basis of aggregate marks of both papers. After declaration of the result, candidates two times the total number of vacant posts were called for document verification and the result of the examination was declared on 29.07.2019, 08.08.2019 and 02.09.2019 for different subjects.
3. After verification of the documents of the candidates, final select/merit list was issued on 16.03.2020, 12.02.2020, 27.02.2020 and 16.03.2020 for different seats. Admittedly, the appellants could not obtain more marks than the cut-off of the selected candidates. At this stage, the appellants have filed writ petitions challenging the action of the State Government for inclusion of the candidates of non-TSP areas on the ground that advertisement was issued on 09.04.2018 as per the vacancies determined on 01.04.2018, however, later on, the State issued a notification dated 19.05.2018, whereby the scheduled area is extended and then, the RPSC issued a corrigendum dated 04.06.2018, whereby it has extended the last date for filling up on-line applications up to 16.06.2018 in relation to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 and as such an opportunity was provided to the candidates residing in newly included TSP areas to apply pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018, whereas it is not permissible under the law.
4. It was argued on behalf of the appellants before the learned Single Judge that in terms of the provisions of Rules of 2014, the vacancies are to be determined on 1st of April every year as such the advertisement which was issued on 9.4.2018, the vacancies indicated therein were upto 01.4.2018 and, therefore, the respondents could not have included the candidates of the newly added TSP areas qua the said vacancies, which pertain to the TSP area as it existed on 01.4.2018. It was also contended that the corrigendum dated 04.06.2018 issued by the RPSC was contrary to the circular dated 01.06.2018 issued by the Department of Personnel, wherein it is specifically provided that the provisions of the notification dated 19.05.2018 would apply to the advertisements issued after 19.05.2018.
5. The writ petitions were opposed by the State raising preliminary objections that the candidates who have been selected pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 have not been impleaded as party-respondents in any of the writ petitions, though they are necessary party and therefore, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.
6. It was also contended on behalf of the State before the learned Single Judge that the writ petitions are highly belated as the selection process, pursuant to the advertisement dated 09.04.2018, has already been concluded and final selection list has already been issued in the month of Feb