Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
Altaf Son Of Abdul Aziz – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical And Health and ors. – Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1750/2017
Decided On : 03-05-2024
Employment - Nurse Gr.II Recruitment - Advertisement Clause 11, Clause 12 - The court emphasized the obligation of the recruiting agency to properly inform selected candidates about document verification and appointment processes, ruling that failure to do so deprived candidates of their rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, selected for Nurse Gr.II, was not informed about the verification of documents and thus could not join, while vacancies were filled from a waiting list. The petitioner argued he was not properly notified of his selection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the recruiting agency failed to adequately inform the petitioner about his selection and the verification process, which constituted a violation of his rights to employment based on merit.
Issues: Whether the recruiting agency's failure to inform the petitioner about his selection and the verification process deprived him of his right to join the post of Nurse Gr.II.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the recruiting agency must properly inform selected candidates of their selection and the necessary steps for verification, and failure to do so is arbitrary and unconstitutional.
Result: The writ petition is allowed, directing the respondents to verify the petitioner's documents and consider him for appointment.
ORDER :
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
1. By filing instant writ petition the petitioner has prayed to issue directions to the respondents to allow him joining on the post of Nurse Gr.II in pursuance of the select list dated 09.02.2016 as per his merit with all consequential benefits.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been issued the appointment order and also not allowed him the joining on the post of Nurse Gr.II even after his final selection pursuant to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013. Counsel submits that the respondents issued the revised list of selected candidates on 09.02.2016 (Annex.4) wherein the name of the petitioner was placed at S.No. 7016. However, the respondents neither issued any appointment order in favour of the petitioner even after he being placed in the select list nor the respondents informed about the select list because of which he has been deprived from appointment on the post of Nurse Gr.II.
3. Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner was though placed in the select list dated 09.02.2016 but he did not appear for verification of documents on the given date and, therefore, no appointment order was issued in his favour. Counsel submits that the vacancies which remained unfilled due to non-joining of the selected candidates, have been filled up by operating the waiting list. Counsel submits that since the petitioner did not appear for verification of documents and no appointment order was issued to him without verification of documents, the vacancy against which the petitioner was selected was filled up from the candidate of waiting list, and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed any relief.
4. On consideration of the submissions and the pleadings, the facts emerges are that the respondents issued an advertisement dated 26.02.2013 for inviting applications from the eligible candidates for recruitment to the post of Nurse Gr.II. The petitioner being a candidate of OBC category submitted the application form for recruitment against the vacancies reserved for the OBC candidates. The respondents issued the first provisional list on 23.06.2013. The petitioner who has secured 64.52 marks was not placed in the select list. However, the respondents again revised the result and issued the second provisional select list on 28.10.2015 and in that too also the petitioner was not declared selected because as per the revised result the petitioner secured 64.43 marks.
The respondents issued third revised provisional select list on 09.02.2016 and as per the revised result, the petitioner secured 64.88 marks and the cut off marks for OBC candidates was 64.807. Since the petitioner has secured marks higher than the cut off marks for the OBC candidate, he was placed in the third provisional select list dated 09.02.2016. Pursuant to the select list dated 09.02.2016 the respondents issued posting order dated 10.02.2016 wherein the selected candidates were required to join the duty on or before 28.03.2016. On applications of certain candidates the joining time was also extended upto 27.09.2016.
5. Vide order dated 09.08.2016 the respondents allowed posting to the candidates from the waiting list against the vacancies which remained unfilled because of non-joining of the selected candidates who were given posting orders on 10.02.2016.
6. As per the documents available on the record, the petitioner made an application to the respondents in the Month of August 2016 (Annex.7) that since he has been declared selected but he has not been allowed posting and joining and requested to allow him appointment of joining. The petitioner came to know about his selection in the third select list when certain candidates from the waiting list were allowed to join.
7. The main thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was declared selected in the third revised result about which he was never informed by the respondents. Counsel also submits that the
Appellants lacked a legal right to personal notification for document verification as per advertisement norms; negligence in following the stipulated communication method led to dismissal of their cl....
The court ruled that candidates must adhere to the selection process terms, and failure to appear for document verification despite multiple opportunities negates any claim for relief.
The court established that candidates participating in a recruitment process are bound by the communication methods specified in the advertisement, and failure to check publicly available information....
Unsuccessful selection candidates estopped from challenging process; public institutions must declare all selection outcomes transparently before re-advertising to prevent suspicion.
The main legal point established is that there was no absolute obligation on the respondent to communicate through both email and phone number, and fair opportunities were given to the petitioner for....
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
