IMPORTANT POINT
Termination without fraud or misrepresentation, especially after the appointee had served for a considerable period, would cause undue hardship and ruin their careers, making it unsustainable in the absence of any fault on the part of the petitioner and without following principles of natural justice.

ORDER :

1. Learned counsel for the parties particularly Mr. Manish Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General jointly submit that the issue involved in this petition is covered by the order passed by this Court in Rajveer Bugaliya Vs. State of Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8514/2022), decided on 08.12.2023. The order dated 08.12.2023 reads as follows:-

"1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the Petitioner may kindly be allowed:-

a. By an appropriate writ, order or directions, the impugned order dated 01.06.2022 (Ann.3) and 02.06.2022 (Ann.4) terminating the services of the petitioner from the post of Constable (Driver) may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioner;

b. The respondent may kindly be directed to continue the petitioner on the post of Constable (Driver) held by him under the respondent with all consequential benefits;

c. 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 petitioner.

d. Writ petition filed by the Petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs.”

2. The instant petition pertains to the impugned action of the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been sought to be terminated from the post of Constable (Driver), after he was duly selected and appointed on the said post. On such due selection and appointment, the petitioner accordingly joined his respective post and also completed the requisite training. Thereafter, the proceedings were held to revise the results/selection list at a belated stage and the cut off marks were also revised. The petitioner could not secure the marks within the cut off limit, and now, he has been sought to be ousted from the employment in question.

3. As per the petitioner, there is nothing on record to show that he secured such appointment by any fraud, suppression, and misrepresentation of any material fact, and therefore, the impugned action of the respondents is highly illegal and arbitrary, thus unsustainable in the eye of law.

4. This Hon’ble Court had passed the following interim order on 20.06.2022 in this case:-

“Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Constable pursuant to the Advertisement dated 04.12.2019. The petitioner has already been awarded appointment order and in pursuance to the same, has also been provided training at Bikaner, vide order dated 15.08.2021 issued by the office of III Batalion, Bikaner. Learned counsel further submitted that without following principles of natural justice and without affording any opportunity of hearing, the respondents vide order impugned dated 02.06.2022 have removed the petitioner from the service.

Counsel relied upon an interim order passed in an identical matter Alpesh Bariya v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8661/2022).

Keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, meanwhile and till next date, effect and operation of the order dated 02.06.2022 (Annex.-4) qua the petitioner shall remain stayed.

List the matter on 20.07.2022.”

5. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present matter is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case Neeraj Kumari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8951/2022, decided on 07.12.2023 and other connected matters). The relevant portion of the said order dated 07.12.2023 reads as under:-

“5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith the judgments cited at the Bar.

6. This Court observes that the respondents issued the aforementioned advertisement inviting applications for the posts of Constable (GD) and Constable (Driver). The petitioners are eligible for the said post and the same wa