The recruitment process was declared invalid due to lack of transparency and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21, necessitating adherence to established procedures for fairness.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, 21, 309, 311 - Right to Fair Recruitment - Petitioners challenged the selection process for Junior Scientific Officer and related posts, alleging non-compliance with transparency norms and natural justice principles; Court found the process flawed, lacking due procedure, and violating fundamental rights. (Paras 70.1, 70.2, 70.3, 70.4, 70.5, 70.6, 70.7, 70.8, 72.1)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 8(1)(d), 11 - RTI applicability was bypassed by the respondents during the recruitment process, undermining transparency. (Paras 70.8, 72.1)

(C) Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012 - Sections 3, 31 - The appointment of IBPS as an exam authority was questioned; the Court ruled the process was not conducted transparently or legally. (Paras 70.5, 70.6)

Judgment

REPORTABLE

Reserved on : 17/10/2024 & 27.11.2024

Pronounced on: 20/12/2024

Parts	Contents
A	Prefatory Remarks
B	Relevant Statues, Rules and Acts
C	Factual narrative and background
D	Submissions by the counsel representing the petitioners
E	Submissions by the counsel representing the respondents E.1 Submissions by the counsel representing the respondent-State. E.2 Submissions by the counsel representing the respondent-RSPCB E.3 Submissions by the counsel representing the respondent-IBPS. E.4 Submissions by the counsel representing the respondent-Selected candidates who appeared as interveners
F	Issues and points of determination
G	Annotations
H	Discussions and findings Auxiliary findings
I	Conclusion
J	Directions
Act, Statute or Rules	Inter alia relevant provision
Constitution of India	Articles 14, 16, 21, 309, 311
The Right to Information Act, 2005	Sections 8(1)(d), 11
The Rajasthan Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2012	Sections 3, 31
The Rajasthan State Control Board Employees Service Rules and Regulations, 1993	Rules 2(b), 2(f), 6, 18, 25
The Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974	Sections 4(f), 12, 18, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 35, 50, 62, 64
Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution) Act, 1981	Section 54
The Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1988 and The Rajasthan Stamp Rules, 2004	Sections 3 and 39

A. PREFATORY REMARKS

1. Considering the fact that the instant batch of writ petitions warrant adjudication on common questions of law and fact; with the consent of learned counsel appearing on behalf of all the parties, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3567/2024 titled as Narpat Surela vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors , is being taken up as the lead petition. It is cautiously clarified that the instant judgment shall be applicable on all the petitions connected herein/henceforth on mutatis mutandis basis.

B. RELEVANT STATUES, RULES AND ACTS

C. FACTUAL NARRATIVE AND BACKGROUND

2. The respondents vide advertisement dated 05.10.2023 invited applications from the eligible candidates for the post of Junior Scientific Officer (JSO), Junior Environment Engineer (JEE) and Legal Officer – II (LO-II). Subsequently, the respondents issued a vigyapti dated 18.12.2023, corrigendum dated 01.02.2024 and information guidelines for the applicants. The said examination (for JSO) was scheduled on 09.01.2024. Consecutively, the provisional list of the shortlisted candidates for document verification for the post of JSO was released on 23.02.2024 (provisional list for other posts were released in- between 22.02.2024 and 24.02.2024). In the said list(s) the respondents have also issued the category wise cut-off marks i.e. qua GEN-UR, EWS, ST, BC and MBC along with the horizontal cut- off marks with respect to the categories like Persons With Disabilities and Ex- servicemen.

3. The controversy resulting to the instant petition(s) arose when the petitioners did not find their name in the provisional list. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that they did not receive the question booklet as the said examination was conducted via online mode nor any model answer key was published by the respondents. Therefore, the said examination is alleged to be biased, unfair and conducted in a non-transparent manner, bypassing the settled provisions of law.

D. SUBMISSIONS BY THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE PETITIONERS

4. At the outset, learned counsel have averred that the time line of events justify that the cause of action arose after the declaration of provisional results and the issuance of document verification order. The petitioners had a legitimate expectation that respondents would follow the established procedures however, when the same were not complied with, the petitioners without any delay have knocked the doors of the Court.

5. In this backdrop, learned counsel representing the petitioners have averred that the petitioners have raised their grievances before the respondents, have filed a representation via e-mail (dated 26.02.2024) and have even visited the office of respondent nos.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(RAJ) 31899

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)Mr. Justice Sameer Jain, JSAURABH SINGH S/O SHRI RAMSINGH – AppellantVersusSTATE OF RAJASTHAN – RespondentCW / 3326 / 2024

The recruitment process was declared invalid due to lack of transparency and violation of fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21, necessitating adherence to established procedures for fairness.

Cases Referred (6)

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Sameer Jain, J
SAURABH SINGH S/O SHRI RAMSINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 3326 / 2024