Advocates:
['HANUMAN CHOUDHARY', 'ASHIASH SHARMA', '', 'SANDEEP PATHAK']

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1073/2018

Mahipal Choudhary s/o Jai Singh Chaudhary, aged about 20

years, R/o village Sirorkalan, Post Ajarka, Tehsil Mundawar,

District Alwar (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1. Rajasthan Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Jaipur through

its Secretary.

2. The Deputy Secretary (Administration) Rajasthan

Legislative Assembly Secretariat, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Tarun Choudhary for

Mr. Hanuman Choudhary

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Sandeep Pathak

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

Order

23/03/2022

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your

lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow the

writ petition and by an appropriate writ of madamus, order

or direction in nature thereof;

I) The impugned entire selection/appointment order dated

15.12.2017 on the post of Class-IV employee pursuant to

Class-IV advertisement dated 12.09.2017 may kindly be

quashed and set aside with further direction to the

Respondents to produce the entire record of

selection/appointment of Class-IV employee recruitment-

2017 before this Hon’ble High Court.

ii) The respondent may further be directed to

revise/reshuffle the entire selection on the post of Class-

(2 of 3)

[CW-1073/2018]

IV Employee pursuant to advertisement dated 12.09.2017

afresh and if petitioner is otherise deserved on merit he

may also be allowed appointment on the post of Class-IV

employee by including his name in selection/appointment

list with all consequential service benefits.

Iii) Any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deems

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

also be passed in favour of humble petitioner along with

cost of writ petition.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the

advertisement was issued by the respondents in all total 12

vacancies were advertised but the respondents without going

through the same, have selected 18 persons.

It is also submitted that the kith and kin of the ruling party

were selected depriving and denying the rightful claim of the

petitioner to get appointment on the post of Class-IV.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

opposed the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the

petitioner and invited attention of this court to condition number 6

of the advertisement issued on 12.09.2017 which clearly indicates

that the advertised vacancies can be decreased or increased at

any point of time. Counsel submits that without assailing this

condition this writ petition is not maintainable. Counsel further

submits that the selection process in pursuance of the

advertisement dated 12.09.2017 has been completed and the

selected candidates have not been impleaded as party

respondents. He submits that allegations of the malafide have

been levelled against the leaders of the ruling party without

(3 of 3)

[CW-1073/2018]

impleading them as party respondents. Hence, writ petition is not

maintainability.

Heard and considered the arguments of both sides.

From the bare perusal of condition No. 6 of the

advertisement dated 12.09.2017, it is clear that the respondents

have specifically mentioned that the advertised vacancies may be

increased or decreased as per requirement. Admittedly, the

petitioner has not challenged this condition and no illegality has

been committed by the respondents while selecting 18 candidates

on the post of Class-IV.

It is settled position of law that whenever allegations of

malafide are levelled against particular individuals then the

petitioner is under obligation to implead them as party

respondents. It is also the settled position of law that whenever

selected candidates have been given appointments wit