IMPORTANT POINT
Innocent appointees should not suffer due to errors in the recruitment process, and their termination after successful appointments, without any fault on their part, would cause undue hardship and ruin their careers.

JUDGMENT :

1. Since all the instant petitions involve a common controversy, though with marginal variation in the contextual facts, therefore, for the purposes of the present analogous adjudication, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from the above-numbered D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.347/2022 [arising out of common order dated 28.01.2022 passed in SB CWP No.15381/2018 alongwith other connected petition(s) (arising out of order dated 14.02.2022], while treating the same as a lead case.

1.1. Though most of the instant special appeals have been preferred by the State, but since in some of the instant appeals, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission is the appellant, therefore, the same shall hereinafter be referred to as ‘RPSC’ in the present judgment.

2. The prayer clause reads as under:

“It is therefore most respectfully and humbly prayed that this Special Appeal Writ may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 28.01.2022 as passed by Learned Single Judge in SBCWP No.15381/2018 may kindly be set aside and the writ petition as preferred by the petitioner may kindly be dismissed.

3. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Rishi Soni and; Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, appearing on behalf of the State and RPSC, respectively, are that the RPSC issued an advertisement dated 13.07.2016 inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment on the post of Senior Teacher, in various Subjects; in pursuance whereof, the respondents-candidates, being eligible for the said post, filled the application form in their respective Subjects and Category.

3.1. The RPSC issued admit cards to the respondents-candidates and conducted the examination for the post in question; subsequent thereto, the RPSC issued the answer keys of the examination. Thereafter, the RPSC declared the results on 06.02.2018, and published a provisional list of selected candidates for the post in question, as per which, the respondents-candidates were falling under the respective cut off criteria, and thus, were declared successful in the examination in question.

3.2. Subsequently, the RPSC directed the respondent-candidates to appear for documents verification; in pursuance whereof, they appeared for the same, and the documents were duly verified by the office of the RPSC. After the completion of the prescribed process, the appellant-Deputy Director, Secondary Education issued appointment order(s) to the respective respondents-candidates, while allotting them the place of posting; the respondents-candidates duly joined at their respective place of posting.

3.3. In the meantime, some of the unsuccessful candidates preferred a writ petition (SBCWP No.3083/2018 – Rameshvri Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. alongwith other connected petitions) before the Hon’ble Court, calling into question the correctness of some of the questions and their answers, in relation to the recruitment process in question. The said writ petitions were disposed of by this Hon’ble Court vide common order dated 05.05.2018, while directing the constitution of expert committee, afresh, for re-examining the correctness of the answers to certain questions. The RPSC constituted the expert committee, and after submission of the report by the said Committee, the RPSC issued the revised results on 17.09.2018 prescribing fresh cut off criteria/merit list, as per which, the respondents-candidates did not fall within the cut off criteria/merit.

3.4. Subsequently, the appellant-Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner issued an order dated 27.09.2018, whereby the appointments of the respondent-candidates stood cancelled and their services were accordingly terminated. Thereafter, the respondent-candidates filed writ petitions before this Hon’ble Court, which was allowed vide impugned orders dated 28.01.2022 & 14.02.2022.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the impugned orders were passed by the learned