Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Pushpendra Agarwal vs State Of Raj And Anr on 20 October, 2016
[1] SBCWP 3569/2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.3569/2015
Pushpendra Agarwal S/o Shri Ashok Garg, Age about 23 years,
R/o Behind Gaurav Motors, Mistri Market, Jaipur Road, Mahwa,
Dist. Dausa(Raj.)
....Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Water Resources
Department Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur(Raj.)
2. The Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department Rajasthan,
Jyoti Nagar, Bhawani Singh Road, Jaipur(Raj.)
....Respondents
DATE:20.10.2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA
Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, for the petitioner.
Mr. Sanjeev Singhal, Dy. Govt. Counsel, for the respondents.
***** Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that petitioner be appointed as Junior Engineer-Mechanical(Diploma) on the vacant post as per the revised merit list.
Briefly stated the Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Rajasthan-respondent No.2 issued an advertisement on 11.09.2013 under the provisions of the Rajasthan Engineering Subordinate (Irrigation Branch) Service Rules, 1967. The applications were invited for filling 28 posts for Junior Engineer- Mechanical(Diploma). The last date for submission of the application was 22.10.2013. Admittedly, petitioner had applied in pursuance of the above said advertisement. The respondents declared the result on 06.05.2014 and uploaded the same on the [2] SBCWP 3569/2015 departmental website. It is not denied that petitioner was placed at No.1 in the waiting list of selected candidates. It is also not denied that one candidate had not joined and the petitioner being number one, on the waiting list was to be appointed. The selection list was published on 11.08.2014 and selected candidates had to join within a period of 30 days. Thus it is to be logically deduced that the waiting list shall become operational on 11.09.2014 when date for selected candidates to join came to an end. The petitioner knowing fully well that one candidate has not joined made a representation to the respondents. It is also not denied that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered by the Secretary of the Department and the Minister had approved that petitioner be given appointment against the vacant post being No.1 on the waiting list. Once the approval came and appointment letter was to be issued, on 25.02.2015, Section Officer gave a note that waiting list can be acted upon only within a period of six months and since within six months appointment letter has not been issued, the right of the petitioner stand extinguished.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that selection list was published on 11.08.2014 and 30 days period was given to the selected candidates to join service. Dr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma submitted that period of six months is to be counted from 11.09.2014 when one of the selected candidate had not joined as the waiting list shall come into vogue on the date when [3] SBCWP 3569/2015 the period for selected candidates to join service came to an end. Dr. Sharma has further submitted that even if the date of selection 11.08.2014 is taken into consideration, name of the petitioner was approved by the Minister on 10.02.2015 within a period of six months, therefore, merely because of delay in the follow up, issuance of appointment letter could not be denied to the petitioner. It is contended that because of non-performance of ministerial function, thought-over decision to appoint petitioner cannot be set at naught and shall not eclipse the right vested in the petitioner.
Shri Sanjeev Singhal appearing for the respondents could not justify the action of the respondents and advance any meaningful argument as to why waiting list will not commence from 11.09.2014 when the date for joining had come to an end and as to why appointment letter was not issued to the petitioner immediately after decision was taken at the highest level i.e. the Minister.
I find merit in the submissions advanced by Dr. Sharma, Counsel appearing for the petitioner.
In the present case, on 10.02.2015 the Minister had approved the decision taken by the Department that petitioner is to be given appointment. Therefore, a conscious decision was taken within six months of the publication of the selection list. Merely because appointment letter could not be issued by the Department, right vested in the petitioner cannot be denied. For [4] SBCWP 3569/2015 delay of 15 days to issue the appointment letter, conscious decision taken within stipulated period cannot be rendered nugatory. It will be highly unjust and inequitable to deny appointment to the petitioner because appointment letter was not issued by the lower staff.
There is also merit in the contention that waiting list shall operate from the date when the selected candidates had not joined. Therefore, the period of six months to give effect to the waiting list has to commence from the date when the selected candidate had not joined and admittedly that period came to an end on 11.09.2014. Therefore, petitioner was to be issued appointment letter on or before 11.03.2015. A wrong objection was raised by the Section Officer and same was blindly acted upon by the department.
Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner within one month from the receipt of a certified copy of this order.
(KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA),J.
/KKC/