Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 719
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
SAMEER JAIN, J.
Brijsundar Regar S/o Dalchand – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3527 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3521 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3522 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3529 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3536 of 2024, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3646 of 2024
Decided on : 11-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Ms. Komal Kumari Giri with Mr. Bajrang Sepat, Mr. Himanshu Jain with, Ms. Apporva Agarwal, Mr. Rishiraj Maheshwari, Mr. Yashraj Kumawat
For the Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Pareek, AGC, Mr. Nalin G. Narain, AGC with Mr. Arpit Jain, Mr. Manish Bhardwaj
The court established that appointments made during probation are conditional and can be revoked based on subsequent merit evaluations.
Headnote:
Employment - Livestock Assistant - Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977 - The court upheld the termination of petitioners' services based on revised merit lists following litigation, emphasizing the conditional nature of their appointments during probation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were appointed as Livestock Assistants after a recruitment process. Their appointments were later challenged, leading to a revised merit list that ousted them due to lack of merit, despite their prior service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners' appointments were contingent upon the outcome of ongoing litigation and that their termination was justified based on the revised merit list, which prioritized more meritorious candidates.
Issues: Whether the petitioners' termination was lawful given their prior service and the revised merit list that excluded them.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioners had no vested rights to their positions as their appointments were conditional and could be revoked during probation based on merit.
Result: The court dismissed the petitions, upholding the termination of the petitioners' services.
ORDER :
SAMEER JAIN, J.
1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the controversy involved is identical and therefore, with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the sides, the petitions are being jointly taken up for final disposal. For efficacious disposal and recording of arguments, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3527/2024 titled as Brijsundar Regar vs. State of Rajasthan, is being taken up as the lead case.
2. The petition is filed with the following prayers:-
i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents be directed to continue the petitioners on the post of Livestock Assistant in pursuance of appointment orders dated 13.10.2022.
ii) Issue an appropriate writ, order direction in the nature thereof thereby, the impugned Revised Result dated 01.03.2024 (Annex.11) and impugned order dated 02.03.2024 (Annex.12) be declared illegal and may kindly be quashed and set aside qua the petitioners as the similar controversy has already been resolved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors, Civil Appeal No. 429-430 of 2021 as also by this Hon’ble Court in the case of Chhotu Ram Regar and Anr. vs. State of Raj. & Ors. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6614/2017, decided on 2.5.2017 wherein such type of termination orders have been held to be illegal.
iii) Issue and appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed not to oust the petitioners from the post of Livestock Assistant due to revised result.
iv) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be directed to fill up the vacant posts of Livestock Assistant by following the reservation policy as rules.
v) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners.
vi) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioners.”
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on 11.03.2022, the respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter, RSSB) published an advertisement for recruitment on the post of Livestock Assistant under the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977, by way of which, a total of 1136 posts were advertised. Eventually, by way an amended advertisement dt. 27.05.2022, the total number of vacancies increased to 1436 posts. The petitioners before this Court appeared in the requisite examination on 04.06.2022. On 07.07.2022, the respondents issued the final answer key. Thereafter, on the basis of the said answer key, the respondent-RSSB issued the final result on 13.10.2022, by way of which the petitioners were selected on the posts so advertised, having been declared meritorious. Consequently, the respondent-RSSB issued appointment orders in favour of the petitioners, resulting into the petitioners being posted at different locations, in accordance with their merit positions.
4. It was further submitted that pursuant to their appointment, the petitioners had been rendering their services with utmost efficiency for an approximate period of one year. In the meanwhile, one petition, namely S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10276/2022 titled as Praveen Senwar vs. State of Rajasthan along with other petitions, came to be filed before this Court. In the said petition, a challenge was raised against the answer key so released by the respondent-RSSB, more particularly qua Question Nos. 6 and 38. However, the Coordinate Bench found no substance in the petition and vide order dated 28.09.2022, dismissed the petition. Against the said order of dismissal, an appeal was preferred before the Hon’ble Division Bench namely D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 847/2022 titled as Suman and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., which conversely, vide order dated 02.02.2023, allowed the appeal. Subsequently, a
