Back
SAMEER JAIN
Rajendra Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Shyam Sunder Vashistha – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Education Department – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved pertains to the inaction on part of the respondents in not operating the waiting list for the examination of School Lecturer-2018. Therefore, considering the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17297/2022 titled as Santosh Charan vs State of Rajasthan, is being taken up as the lead case. It is cautiously clarified that any discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely to the factual narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the question(s) of law to be determined by this Court.
2. At the outset, it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners herein are those candidates, who are placed next in order of merit, after the selected candidates for the examination of School Lecturer-2018. However, on account of the pendency of S.B. CWP No. 4777/2021 titled as Surjan Lal Dhawan vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein a challenge was raised qua the correctness and/or validity of the impugned revised answer key
Sub-clause (vi) of Rule 277A of Rules of 1996 read as Authorized Agency shall prepare category wise select list of candidates declared successful on basis of criteria of selection laid down.
Waiting list candidates entitled to appointment for vacancies within validity period, tolled by judicial proceedings; cannot be denied arbitrarily.
The petitioner's claim for appointment on the post of JLO from the reserved waiting list was found to be valid as he approached the Court before the expiry of the wait list, and the Court allowed the....
Waiting lists do not confer vested rights for appointment, and recruitment processes can lapse with new selections, as confirmed by the court.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the action of the respondents in not preparing a waiting list in compliance with Rule 15(3) of Rules 1992 was arbitrary and against the spirit....
Selected candidates do not have an indefeasible right to be appointed, and executive instructions cannot override statutory rules.
Selection boards have discretion to prepare waiting lists up to 25% of vacancies, not mandated to reach exactly that number, ensuring reasonable timelines for the recruitment process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
