Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shiv Kumar Vyas vs State Of Raj. & Ors on 14 May, 2013
Author: Gopal Krishan Vyas
Bench: Gopal Krishan Vyas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
:ORDER:
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2116/2013.
(Shiv Kumar Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others)
DATE OF ORDER : May 14, 2013
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS
____________________________________
Mr. Ramesh Purohit for the petitioner.
Mr. G.R. Punia, Addl. Advocate General.
BY THE COURT :
Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Science & Maths) (Level II) as per his merit with all consequential benefits.
As per facts of the case, an advertisement was issued by the Zila Parishad, Bhilwara for recruitment 2 on the posts of Teacher Grade-III in various subjects. The petitioner being eligible and qualified for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level II) participated in the selection process by way of filing application for recruitment to the said post and he was declared successful in the written examination held on 02.06.2012. Thereafter, in the result declared by the respondents the petitioner stood at S.No.235 in the merit.
Case of the petitioner is that his name was included at S.No.1 in the reserve list but, inspite of the fact that, number of candidates did not join duties who were provided appointment from the main list, the respondent Zila Parishad is not operating the reserve list so prepared by the respondents which is placed on record as Annex.-4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court towards Rule 274 of the Rajasthan Panchayat Raj Rules 1996, in which, it is provided that after selection the merit-list is required 3 to be prepared and, at the time of preparing the merit-list there is jurisdiction given to the selection committee of the Zila Parishad to prepare merit-list of the selected candidates which shall not exceed one and a half times the number of vacancies actually available at the time of preparing such merit list.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the selection committee prepared merit list in consonance with Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996 and included the name of the petitioner in the reserve list at S.No.1. Counsel for the petitioner points out that at Bhilwara 1999 vacancies were advertized but number of selected candidates did not join the service or those vacancies remained unfilled due to one or the other reason, therefore, according to the counsel for the petitioner, the respondents were under obligation to provide opportunity to the petitioner for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Science & Maths) (Level II) but without assigning any reason the respondents did not give heed to the 4 reserve list in consonance with Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996.
According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents cannot stay the operation of the law, therefore, in the event of availability of the vacancies after exhausting the main list those vacancies which remained unfilled are required to be filled in from amongst the candidates in the reserve list because the selection committee thought it proper to prepare the reserve list in which the petitioner stood at S.No.1. In view of the above contention it is prayed that the above controversy involved in the present case is already decided by this Court in the judgment rendered in the case of Amba Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008 (5) WLC (Raj.) 245, in which, while following the earlier judgment of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1346/2004, Nathu Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, decided on 14.11.2005, this Court held that in the event of non- joining of candidates from the main list, the 5 respondents are under obligation to provide appointment to the remaining persons who were in the merit list against those unfilled vacancies. Therefore, the reserve list so prepared in consonance with Rule 274 is to be operated within one year and, accordingly, in this case also the respondents may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner against the post which remained unfilled for any of the reasons because his name is at S.No.1 in the reserve list.
Per contra, learned Addl. Advocate General and Senior Advocate Mr. G.R. Punia vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and submits that there is discretion left to the selection committee to prepare reserve list in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996 or not but it is nowhere provided that appointment can be claimed as a matter of right because it is not mandatory for the selection committee to prepare merit list in accordance with Rule 274, therefore, there is complete fallacy in the 6 argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that name of the petitioner is at S.No.1 in the reserve list , therefore, he has any right to claim appointment.
Learned Addl. Advocate General further submits that due to litigation pending in this Court with regard to percentage of marks in the TET examination, the respondents are not filling up those vacancies which remained unfilled and, at this stage, no direction can be given to the State Government to fill up the vacancies which were advertised and remained unfilled, therefore, the direction prayed for by the petitioner cannot be claimed as a matter of right even if the petitioner's name is included in the reserve list or select list. It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may be dismissed.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996 which reads as under :
"Rule 274. Preparation of a merit list by the Committee.-(1) The Committee shall prepare a merit list of 7 candidates considered suitable for appointment to each grade or category of posts in the district and shall on receipt of requisition from the Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads allot candidates from the list in the order in which their names occur in the list :
Provided that:-
(i) the number of candidates in the merit list prepared by the Committee shall not exceed one and a half time the number of vacancies actually available at the time such merit list is prepared; and
(ii) the merit list of candidates so prepared shall remain valid for a period of one year in general and upto end of academic session for teachers. After expiry of such period, it will be deemed to have lapsed.
(2) The Panchayat Samitis or Zila Parishads shall take into consideration the requirement of Rule 261 while sending their requisitions to the Committee."
Upon perusal of Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996 it is abundantly clear that there is power left with the Committee to prepare merit list of selected candidates 8 but there is restriction that the number of candidates included in the merit list shall not exceed one and a half times the number of vacancies actually available at the time of preparing such merit list.
Upon perusal of the reserve list (Annex.-4) filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition, it is abundantly clear that reserve list is prepared by the Committee in which the name of the petitioner is at S.No.1; meaning thereby, the Committee was of the opinion that with a view to filling up the vacancies it is necessary to prepare reserve list so as to utilize the same in the event of non-joining of persons from the main list. In the opinion of this Court, the reserve list so prepared in consonance with Rule 274 is required to be operated to fill up all the vacancies which were advertized. Therefore, argument of learned counsel for the respondents is not acceptable that the respondents are not under obligation to operate the reserve list because the very purpose of preparing the reserve list is to use the same in the 9 event of non-joining of persons in the main list or in the event of availability of the vacancies out of the advertised vacancies due to one or the other reason.
The above adjudication is supported by the law laid down by the apex Court in the case of Dr. Uma Kan Vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & Others, AIR 1991 SC 2272, Virender S. Hooda & Others Vs. State of Haryana & Another, (1999) 3 SCC 696, Brijendra Singh & Others Vs. State & Others, 2005 (5) RDD 397 (Raj) (DB), A.P. Aggarwal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T. Of Delhi & Another, JT 1999 (9) SC 125 and followed by this Court in the case of Ambalal Vs. State of Rajasthan, reported in 2008 (5) WLC (Raj.) 245 and the judgment rendered in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1346/2004, Nathu Ram Vs. State.
Admittedly, the reserve list is prepared by the selection committee in accordance with Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996, therefore, obviously it is to be used for filling up those vacancies which remained unfilled due to non-joining of the candidates after 10 appointment or for any other reason.
As a result of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for providing appointment who is at S.No.1 in the reserve list and pass appropriate orders for appointment if the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be appointed against the vacancy advertised which remained unfilled within a period of two months from today.
While parting with this case it is made clear that the ratio of this judgment/order will be applicable only for those Zila Parishads where reserve list is prepared as per Rule 274 of the Rules of 1996 because there is power left with the selection committee to include the name of the selected candidates in the ratio of one and a half times to the number of vacancies actually available.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(Gopal Krishan Vyas) J.
11Ojha, a.