SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Vandana D/o Murari Lal - Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department of Education and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12594 of 2021
Decided On : 08-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Vinay Jain
For the Respondent: Mr. Shrawan Kumar, Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit.

The retrospective application of circulars in recruitment processes and the obligation to give effect to non-joining of candidates in the operation of reserve lists.

Headnote:

Senior Teacher - Recruitment Process - Circular dated 27.12.2021 - [Circular dated 27.12.2021] - The court discussed the application of the circular dated 27.12.2021 in the recruitment process for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) and its retrospective impact on the operation of the reserve list. The court found that the circular could not be applied retrospectively and directed the respondents to operate the reserve list for the petitioner, resulting in her appointment.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner participated in the recruitment process for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) and was placed at serial No. 17 in the reserved merit list. The non-joining of a candidate, Sanjeev Kumar, was not given effect to, depriving the petitioner of appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the circular dated 27.12.2021 could not be applied retrospectively to the recruitment process and directed the respondents to operate the reserve list for the petitioner, resulting in her appointment.

Issues: The non-joining of a candidate and the retrospective application of the circular dated 27.12.2021 in the recruitment process.

Ratio Decidendi: The circular dated 27.12.2021 could not be applied retrospectively to the recruitment process, and the non-joining of a candidate should have been given effect to, resulting in the appointment of the petitioner.

Final Decision: The writ petition stands allowed, and the respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) within three months.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs :-

    “A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, any order denying to consider the candidature of the petitioner for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) against the non-joined candidates pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2018 (Annex.1) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to issue a fresh pick list while exclude the name of the non-joined candidates for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) pursuant to advertisement dated 09.04.2018.

C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner for her final selection against the non-joined candidates as per her reserve merit status for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09.04.2018.

D. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner in the further selection process and provide the appointment in her respective category of General Women as per her marks and merit status against the available vacant posts as not filled-up by non-joined candidates for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 with all consequential benefits.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the petitioner has qualification of graduation and B.Ed. and as per her eligibility, participated in the recruitment process for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) arising out of the advertisement dated 09.04.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner qualified in the said examination, as she was having cut off in the General Women (Non-TSP) category candidate, who placed in reserved merit at serial No.17. The reserved merit list as evident from the Annexure-6 was operated upto reserved merit list No.16 whereby the last appointment was offered to one Anju Sharma, but she did not join for the said post.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the case of the present petitioner is that while the list of non-joiners given in Annexure-6 was made the information regarding one Sanjeev Kumar was not given to the R.P.S.C., and thus, the reserved list, which ought to be operated upto serial no. 17 could not be operated.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention to the office note of Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, which is on record at page 142 of the writ petition; the para Nos. 10, 11, 22 and 23 of the office note reads as follows:-

^^10- izLrqr izdj.k dk ijh{k.k funs'kd ek/;fed f'k{kk chdkusj }kjk dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 21-12-2021 ¼i`- 42&43@lh½ ds lanHkZ esa fd;k x;k gS tcfd izdj.k esa eq[; lwph ds fo:) izFke lwph fnukad 17-03-2020 dks iszf"kr dh xbZ gSA vFkkZr~ izdj.k esa dkfeZd foHkkx dk ifji= fnukad 21-12-2021 ¼i`- 42&43@lh½ izHkkoh ugha gksdj rRle; ds izko/kku gh ykxw gksaxsA
11- mijksDrkuqlkj Li"V gS fd izdj.k esa izFker% la;qDr funs'kd] Ldwy f'k{kk ikyh laHkkx }kjk vH;FkhZ latho dqekj dk vkosnu foyEc ls izsf"kr fd;k x;kA rRi'pkr~ funs'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk chdkusj }kjk izdj.k dk xyr ifji= ds laca/k esa ijh{k.k fd;k x;k gSA bl dkj.k vH;FkhZ latho dqekj dk vkosnu iqu% vkjih,llh dks izsf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldkA tks fd laHkor% iwoZ izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj izsf"kr fd;k tkuk pkfg, FkkA
22- bl laca/k esa fuosnu gS fd dkfeZd foHkkx dh jk; ¼i`"B 41@lh½ ds vuqlkj ofj"B v/;kid&2016 dh HkrhZ esa eq[; lwph dkfeZd foHkkx ds uohu ifji= fnukad 27-12-2021 ls iwoZ vfHkLrkfor dj nh xbZ FkhA vr% mDr HkrhZ esa izrh{kk lwph ls uke vfHkLrkfor djus dh le;kof/k dh x.kuk eq[; lwph vfHkLrkfor djus ds le; izHkkoh funsZ'kksa ¼ifji= fnukad 19-7-2021] 13-1-2016 ,oa 26-4-2018½ ds vuqlkj gksxhA
23- mDr izdj.k esa la;qDr funs'kd Ldwy f'k{kk ikyh }kjk voxr ¼i`"B 27@lh½ djok;k x;k gS fd mDr HkrhZ gsrq vfUre dk;Zxzg.k frfFk rd dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dk ewy vkosnu i=


    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top