Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jai Prakash Punia &Anr vs State Of Raj & Ors on 25 August, 2011
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4491/2010 Dr Gobri Lal Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6428/2008 Shambhoo Dayal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 12744/2009 Jai Prakash Punia & anr Vs The State of Rajasthan & ors 4.SB Civil Writ Petition No.3905/2010 Dr Kishor Singh vs The State of Rajasthan & ors 5.SB Civil Writ Petition No.4915/2010 Dr Satya Narayan Gupta Vs The State of Rajasthan & ors 6.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 7441/2011 Mohar Singh Lamba Vs The State of Rajasthan & ors 25.8.2011 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr PK Sharma, Sr Advocate Mr SP Sharma, Sr Adv with Mr Gaurav Sharma - for petitioners Dr VB Sharma, Addl Government Counsel for the State Mr Tanveer Ahmed for respondent - Jagram Vishnoi in SBCWP No.7441/2011. BY THE COURT:
These writ petitions involved two sets of cases. In the first set, a challenge has been made to the order of termination of those candidates who were appointed as Ayurved Chikitsak after their selection.
In the second set, candidates are those who have prayed for proper determination of merit and their appointment consequent thereupon.
Mr PK Sharma and Mr SP Sharma, Sr Advocates, appearing for petitioners, submit that pursuant to the advertisement dated 15.9.2007, merit of the candidates was determined by the respondents and appointment orders were issued thereupon. Respondents have passed order of termination of few of the petitioners holding that their marks were not rightly calculated and, on reassessment, such petitioners were found to be lower in merit thus ordered to be discontinued.
It is urged that if the actual marks of the qualification are taken note of, then first set of petitioners stand in merit. Respondents should have determined the merit after considering the marks of qualifying examination accordingly i.e. if one appeared in second attempt for one or more paper then his original marks should be considered. If the aforesaid is done, order of termination needs to be set aside and it will cover first set of candidates.
So far as second set of candidates are concerned, they have contested the matter against first set of candidates. This is due to wrong determination of merit and appointments as a consequence thereof. Accordingly, their prayer is to determine merit afresh and give appointment to the candidates in order of merit after discontinuing those who do not fall in the merit.
Dr VB Sharma, learned counsel for respondents submits that fresh merit list would be drawn based on the marks of of the qualifying examination for the purpose of determination of merit. The merit would be determined after taking marks of the qualifying examination, as per provisions of law. If a candidate has appeared for examination in second attempt, then his marks would be counted as per the rules. The merit list would accordingly be prepared after taking into consideration the marks on proportionate basis.
I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
The only dispute is regarding determination of merit. The respondents have agreed to prepare a fresh merit list after taking into consideration the marks of qualifying examination as per the provisions of law.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that respondents will prepare a fresh merit list after taking marks of qualifying examination into consideration. It should be as per law. If rules permit counting of actual marks in second attempt, then it may be taken into consideration accordingly, however, if rules provide otherwise, then marks may be taken to the extent permissible. All the parties have agreed to aforesaid more so when they are representing both set of cases.
After determination of the merit as per rules, respondents will give appointment to the meritorious candidates, who were left out earlier and continue others who were appointed earlier and again fall in merit. If a candidate appointed earlier goes out of merit then he may be served with show cause notice before his discontinuation however, if vacancies exist then respondents may try to accommodate them by continuing them in service subject to condition that no candidate is left out in merit above them and not otherwise. Compliance of the order be made within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Till then, termination orders may not be given effect to, rather it will remain subject to outcome of the exercise as indicated above.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J