Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Manoj Kumar Acharya vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 18 January, 2022
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, M.M. Sundresh
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12335/2016
MANOJ KUMAR ACHARYA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. Respondent(s)
WITH
C.A. No. 12336/2016
C.A. No. 12334/2016
C.A. No. 12337/2016
C.A. Nos. 12338-12341/2016
C.A. No. 12333/2016
O R D E R
CIVIL APPEAL NO.12335/2016 We are concerned with the dispute which arose initially on account of a Notification dated 26.02.2013 issued by the Directorate of Medical and Health Services, Government of Rajasthan, in terms whereof, in the selection process, such of the persons who were already working at the post of Nurse Grade II on a contractual basis were given bonus marks to fill the existing vacancies of 15,773 posts. These bonus marks were sought to be given as per Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Medical and Health Subordinate Services Rules, 1965. The State sought to give the bonus 10 marks for one Signature Not Verified year, 20 marks for two years and 30 marks for three Digitally signed by Charanjeet kaur Date: 2022.01.25 17:43:33 IST Reason: years service. This was assailed before the High Court by one Shri Mahendra Kumar, respondent No.4 before us. The High Court of Rajasthan found fault with this 2 reservation not per se but in terms of the marks which were sought to be assigned and opined by the judgment dated 25.09.2013 that the bonus marks to be given ought to be 5, 10 and 15 marks, respectively.
The State filed Special Leave Petitions against these orders but the stated interim orders were found by the State not to assist in filling up of the vacancies and the appellant before us Manoj Kumar Acharya who would have gained benefit under the 10, 20 and 30 bonus marks principle also filed a Special Leave Petition with liberty to do so. Such liberty was granted.
It appears that thereafter the State Government, in its administrative wisdom took a departmental decision on 28.01.2015 seeking to have the bonus marks of 5 for one year, 10 marks for two years and 15 marks for three years as had been opined by the High Court. They also sought to withdraw the SLPs, but that liberty was apparently not granted. Ultimately, they withdrew the application for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petitions on 29.11.2016 when leave was granted and the appeal was allowed upholding the right of the State to fix the bonus marks at 10, 20 and 30. We may note that the endeavour of certain parties to be impleaded in those proceedings was rejected.
We are now faced with a scenario where the view of this Court is that, what was earlier done by the State 3 is correct but in the meantime the selection process is over and vacancies have been filled in. It is possible that certain vacancies still exist but they were carried forward and it is not possible to turn the clock back.
We have examined the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and also considered the fact that the State itself by a subsequent G.O. dated 24.05.2018 sought to restore the earlier bonus marks of 10, 20 and 30. A reading of that order would show to us that only a history is given of the past and there is nothing for us to come to a conclusion that it would operate retrospectively. It is thus, the submission of learned senior counsel for the State that insofar as the 2013 selection is concerned, the same cannot be disturbed as the selection has taken place on the basis of 5, 10 and 15 bonus marks albeit with a thought process keeping in mind the judgment of the High Court which has subsequently been set aside by this Court.
In order to work out the equities and yet respect the selection process which has taken place, we do believe that Manoj Kumar Acharya who had simultaneously filed the Special Leave Petition with liberty to do so along with the State appeals cannot be deprived of the benefit of the judgment of this Court. This is more so as it is not as if these persons were not working but were working on contractual basis. Thus, the benefit 4 must accrue to Manoj Kumar Acharya but he would naturally be placed at the 2013 bottom of the selection list with monetary benefit available only from 01.02.2022, with necessary orders to be issued by that date. Now coming to the various applications of parties who sought to ride a piggyback on Manoj Kumar Acharya by filing these applications in the year 2018. We do believe that delay and laches in seeking redressal of their grievances comes in their way, more so, as the earlier selection process had been completed. We thus, cannot permit them to be impleaded or grant the same benefit as Manoj Kumar Acharya. These applications are accordingly, dismissed.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving parties to bear their own costs. C.A. No. 12336/2016, C.A. No. 12334/2016, C.A. Nos. 12338- 12341/2016, C.A. No. 12333/2016 On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find no case for parity among the different departments for giving bonus marks in process of recruitment. We thus, find no fault with the judgment(s).
The appeals accordingly stand dismissed. 5 C.A. No. 12337/2016 On hearing learned counsel we see no case made out for parity between the people working in the private sector and working in the Government for giving bonus marks for recruitment.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
………………………………………..J. [SANJAY KISHAN KAUL] ………………………………………..J. [M.M. SUNDRESH] NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 18, 2022.
6
ITEM NO.104 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 12335/2016
MANOJ KUMAR ACHARYA Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. & ORS. Respondent(s)
IA No. 79073/2018 - INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT) WITH C.A. No. 12336/2016 (XV) (IA FOR [I A FOR IMPLEADMENT] ON IA 29110/2017 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 103523/2017 FOR INTERVENTION/IMPLEADMENT ON IA 41449/2018 FOR INTERVENTION APPLICATION ON IA 41454/2018 C.A. No. 12334/2016 (XV) (IA FOR ON IA 3/2016 FOR APPLICATION FOR TRANSPOSITION ON IA 85404/2019 C.A. No. 12337/2016 (XV) C.A. No. 12338-12341/2016 (XV) ( FOR ADDITION / DELETION / MODIFICATION PARTIES ON IA 106289/2019 FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING ON IA 106290/2019 C.A. No. 12333/2016 (XV) Date : 18-01-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH For Appellant(s) Mr. Manoj Swarup, Sr. Adv.
Mr. H.D. Thanvi, Adv.
Mr. U.N. Goyal, Adv.
Mr. Achal Singh Bule, Adv. Mr. Rishi Matolia, Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania, AOR Mr. Prabodh Kumar, AOR Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR Mr. M. M. Kashyap, AOR 7 For Respondent(s) Dr. Manish Singvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Arpit Parkash, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kumar Jha, AOR Mr. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR Ms. Ruchi Kohli, AOR Mr. R.R. Jangu, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Joginder Mann, Adv.
Mr. D.K. Thakur, Adv.
Ms. Shaifali, Adv.
Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Hardik Ahluwalia, Adv. Ms. Urvi Kashiwal, Adv.
Ms. Padhmalakshmi Iyengar, Adv. Mr. Vishal Meghwal, Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar, AOR Mr. R.R. Jangu, Adv.
Mr. Rajeev Kumar Gupta, Adv. Mr. Joginder Mann, Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Delay in filing spare copies is condoned.
Applications for impleadment are dismissed.
Application for transposition is dismissed.
Application for deletion is allowed.CIVIL APPEAL NO.12335/2016
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application if any, stands disposed of.
C.A. No. 12336/2016, C.A. No. 12334/2016, C.A. Nos. 12338- 12341/2016, C.A. No. 12333/2016 The appeals are dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application if any, stands disposed of.8 C.A. No. 12337/2016
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
Pending application if any, stands disposed of.
(ASHA SUNDRIYAL) (POONAM VAID) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
[Common signed order is placed on the file]