Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shyam Kumar Sharma S/O Kailash Narayan ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 3 January, 2022
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22546/2018
1. Shyam Kumar Sharma S/o Kailash Narayan Sharma, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o 16, Vishnu Vihar Colony, Prem
Nagar-B, Agra Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Lokesh Kumar Livariya S/o Dalveer Singh Livariya, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o V And P Naya Gaon Khalsa, Tehsil
Bhusawar, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
3. Madan Lal Jakhar S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Vpo Panditan-Wali, Tehsil Pilibangan, District
Hanumangarh (Raj.)
4. Sant Lal S/o Udami Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo
Ranisar Post Jabrasar, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh
(Raj.)
5. Mahendra Singh S/o Shishupal Singh, Aged About 34
Years, R/o V And P Baori, Via Reengus, District Sikar
(Raj.)
6. Bodu Ram S/o Bhiwa Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o V
And P Bhagwanpura, Tehsil Nawacity, District Nagaur
(Raj.)
7. Shiv Prakash S/o Birbal Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Ward No.2, Vpo Mahiyanwali, Tehsil And District
Sriganganagar (Raj.)
8. Satish Kumar S/o Harchand Raidash, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village And Post Bhudol, Via Ganwana, District
Ajmer (Raj.)
9. Kapil Dev S/o Mahi Ram, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo 4
Dd Delwan, Tehsil Padampur, District Sriganganagar
(Raj.).
10. Mahesh Chand S/o Shri Ramsahay, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village Bansroli, Post Astawan, Teshil Kumher, Distt.
Bharatpur (Raj.).
11. Pooja Kurdia D/o Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Village And Post Nareli, Via Madar, Distt. Ajmer
(Raj.).
12. Netrapal Singh S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village And Post Gunsara, Tehsil Kumher, Distt.
Bharatpur (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(2 of 17) [CW-22546/2018]
13. Talib Husain S/o Nisar Khan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Madansar, Post Bhimsar, Distt. Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
14. Narendra Singh Sisodiya S/o Kalu Singh, Aged About 26
Years, R/o V And P Rathanjana, Tehsil And District
Pratapgarh (Raj.)
15. Rama Shankar Joshi S/o Prakash Chand Joshi, Aged
About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Akhaigarh, Tehsil Nadbai, District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
16. Naresh Kumar S/o Bhura Ram Koli, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Village Dolpura, Post Dhawali, Tehsil Reodar, District
Sirohi (Raj.)
17. Babita D/o Sanjeev Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Majra Kath, Post Neemrana, Tehsil Behror, District
Alwar (Raj.)
18. Sultana Abbasi S/o Basir Mohd. Abbasi, Sajid Hussain,
Aged About 40 Years, R/o Gandhi Chowk, H.no.385, Dari
Mohalla, Nasirabad, Ajmer.
19. Priyanka S/o Parmanand, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo
Ghamandiya, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar
(Raj.)
20. Deepak Kumar Ahari S/o Veerchand Ahari, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Bijuda, Post Shishod Yaya Dewal, Tehsil
Bichhiwara, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
21. Rajendra Kumar S/o Kalyanmal Meena, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Village Kachnariya, Post And Tehsil Aklera,
District Jhalawar (Raj.)
22. Alka Soni D/o Brajesh Soni, Aged About 25 Years, R/o V
And P Dewari, Tehsil Shahabad, District Baran (Raj.)
23. Kanti Lal Baranda S/o Mohan Lal Baranda, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Mukam Post Bildi, Tehsil And Distt. Dungarpur
(Raj.)
24. Subita D/o Bajran Lal W/o Sudhir Kumar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Devipura, Vpo Kutari, Dhayalan, Via Reengus,
District Sikar (Raj.)
25. Daulat Ram S/o Bhagwana Ram Jat, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Vpo Dallusar Tolasar, Tehsil Sardarshahar,
District Churu (Raj.)
26. Prakash Bishnoi S/o Mangala Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
R/o V And P Lalasar, Dawal, Tehsil Chilwana, District
Jalore (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(3 of 17) [CW-22546/2018]
27. Jagdish Dantusaliya S/o Madan Lal Dantusaliya, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Pidiyara, Post Manglod, Vaya
Rol, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur (Raj.)
28. Reena D/o Ramu Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village
Jatanpura, Post Chhoti Beri, Tehsil Didwana, District
Nagaur (Raj.)
29. Sugna Devi D/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Jaswantpura, Post Panchawa, Tehsil Kuchaman
City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
30. Manish Prajapat S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No.07, Village Khari Charnan, Tehsil Kolayat,
District Bikaner.
31. Sarfraz Pathan S/o Abrar Ahamed, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o V And P Kelwara, Tehsil Sahbad, District Baran (Raj.)
32. Kanchan D/o Har Lal Singh, W/o Anil Kumar, Aged About
31 Years, R/o Village Pabana, Mukandgarh Mandi,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
33. Dharmpal Vishnoi S/o Jagdish Chandra, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Chak 4 Prm, Post Dantour, Tehsil Khajuwala,
District Bikaner (Raj.)
34. Rakash Kumar S/o Sajan Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Vpo Matoriya Wali, Dhanith, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
35. Subhadra Kumari D/o Rameshwar Prasad, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village Post Morseem, Teshil Bagoda, District
Jalore (Raj.)
36. Mukesh Kumar Bunker S/o Maliram Bunker, Aged About
28 Years, R/o Godam Ke Pass, Vikash Colony, Biharipura,
Post Sirsali, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
37. Richhpal S/o Shri Soram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo
Itawa, Badhal, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.)
38. Vimla D/o Hukma Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o C/o
Shivam Medical Store Sanchore, Tehsil Sanchore, District
Jalore (Raj.)
39. Kishna Ram S/o Bhakhara Ram, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Bachhala, Post Bherudi, Tehsil Sedva, District
Barmer (Raj.)
40. Suresh Kumar S/o Jagmala Ram, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Kandhi Ki Dhani, Post Gudamalani, Tehsil
Gudamalani, District Barmer (Raj.)
(Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(4 of 17) [CW-22546/2018]
41. Suman Sehra D/o Ganga Ram Sehra, Aged About 34
Years, R/o Plot No. 6, Jatipuri Colony, Mahesh Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
42. Alka Chauhan D/o Ramkishore Chauhan W/o Darpan
Kumar Verma, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 122, Mahatma
Gandhi Nagar, Dcm Ajmer Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
43. Divya Choudhary D/o Ratan Lal Choudhary, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Opp. Hanuman Temple Pugal Road, Bikaner
(Raj.)
44. Darashna Rani D/o Jagdish Lal W/o Vikas Kumar, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o 7 Rp (B) Ranjeetpura, Post Office
Mohanmagria, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
45. Sonu D/o Rajendra Saharan W/o Rajesh Choudhary, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Village Janana Tehsil Bhadra, P.o.
Sahuwala, District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
46. Kalu Ram S/o Vala Ram Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Sarano Ka Tala, Post Jogasar, Tehsil Sindri, District
Barmer
47. Ram Singh Godara S/o Balwant Singh Godara, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o V And P Phephana, Tehsil Nohar,
Distt.hanumangarh
48. Shriram Chaturvedi S/o Mohan Lal Chobe, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Vpo Kaladera, Near Gram Panchayat, Tehsil
Chomu, Distt.jaipur.
49. Kaushalya Sharma D/o Gyani Ram Sharma W/o Kamlesh
Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 301,sector No.5,
Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh
50. Shanti Devi D/o Hanuman Das W/o Vikas Kumar Swami,
Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No.12, Near Govt.
Hospital, Sahawa V.p.o. Sahawa, Tehsil Taranagar, District
Churu (Raj.)
51. Rajesh Kumar S/o Ganesh Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
R/o Vpo Gothara Bhukran Tehsil Dhod , Distt. Sikar
52. Rachana Khangar D/o Moti Lal Khnagar W/o Dara Singh
Khangar, Aged About 33 Years, Vpo Rajwas Tehsil Newai
Distt. Tonk
53. Dhanna Lal Sahriya S/o Radheyshyam Shariya, Aged
About 27 Years, Vil. Nayagaon Post Bajrangarh Teh.
Kishanganj Distt. Baran
54. Ranvir Singh S/o Niroti Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Vpo
(Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(5 of 17) [CW-22546/2018]
Marohli Teh. Bari Distt. Dholpur
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Secondary Education, Govt. Secretariat,
Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education Bikaner (Raj.)
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer, Through
Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Kota
5. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jaipur
6. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur.
7. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Pali.
8. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur.
9. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Jodhpur.
10. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Churu.
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22531/2018
1. Anokhi Saini D/o Shri Kailash Chand Saini W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar Saini, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vill. Bahravanda, Tehsil - Sikrai, District Dausa (Raj.)-303501
2. Indu Yadav D/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Jakharana Tehsil Behror District Alwar (Raj.)-301713
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur (Raj.)
4. Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Kota Division, Kota (Raj.)
5. The Principal Government Senior Sec. School, Javati Kalan, District Bundi, (Raj.)
6. The Principal Government Senior Sec. School, Isarda, (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) (6 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] Chouth Ka Barwada, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
7. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22535/2018 Shital Kumar Bochlya S/o Narshi Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o A-1, Deepak Colony, Barkat Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22536/2018 Ajita Kumari D/o Banwari Lal W/o Kuldeep Nain, Aged About 27 Years, Vpo Bhikhansar, Via Mahansar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner (Raj.)
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer (Raj.)
4. The Dy. Director, Secondary Education, Udaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 22545/2018
1. Vakeel Khan S/o Subhan Khan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Machdi, Via Umrain, Tehsil And District Alwar, Rajasthan
2. Gulab Bai Meena D/o Girraj Prasad Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Bhanokhar, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar, Rajasthan
3. Laxmi Bai D/o Madan Lal Jatav, Aged About 27 Years, R/o (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) (7 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] Vpo Bijwad Namka, Tehsil Bhalakhera, District Alwar, Rajasthan
4. Manoj Kumar Verma S/o Puran Mal Verma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kodiya, Post Itoli, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan
5. Shushma Naruka D/o Amar Singh Naruka, Aged About 46 Years, R/o 4-A, Tara Nagar-C, Jhotwara, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Education Secretary, Government Secretariat, Jaipur
2. The Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Akshit Gupta Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Ms. Sara Parveen Mr. Ankit Sethi Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with Mr. Giriraj Rajoria, Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, AGC Mr. Nitin Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Order 03/01/2022 Though the matters come up on various applications filed by the respective parties but, on their joint request, the matters were heard finally on merit at this stage.
Since, these writ petitions involve similar facts and common question of law and hence, are being decided together. (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(8 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] Challenge in these writ petitions is to the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Director Secondary Education (Bikaner) whereby, the services of the petitioners, Senior Teachers, have been terminated on account of revised result.
The facts in brief, as emerge from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22546/2018, Shyam Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., are that vide advertisement dated 13.07.2016, the Rasjathan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (for short, "RPSC") invited applications for appointment on the post of Senior Teacher in various faculties including Social Science and Science. The criteria of selection was written examination comprising of two papers. Model answer key was published by the recruitment agency on 30.08.2017. After inviting objections to the model answer key, a provisional select list dated 06.02.2018 was issued wherein roll numbers of all the petitioners figured and vide order dated 20.04.2018, they were appointed as Senior Teacher in Social Science/Science on probation for a period of two years. Vide order impugned dated 27.09.2018, their services have been terminated on account of revised result issued in pursuance of direction issued by this Court in various judgments, which is subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions.
Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that once the petitioners were given appointment by the respondents on account of their merit position in the select list, their services could not have been terminated on account of revised result as their appointment was not outcome of any fraud or misrepresentation on their part.
Learned counsels submitted that vide judgment dated 05.05.2018, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) (9 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] Petition No.3083/2018, Rameshvri Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters directed the RPSC to constitute an expert committee afresh to evaluate correctness of the questions/answers which were found to be demonstrably wrong by the Court and the relief was confined to those petitioners only who have approached the Court after raising objection to the model answer key. They submitted that a Division Bench of this court has, vide its judgment dated 12.03.2019 in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.922/2018, Bhunda Ram Vs. State of Rajathan and Ors. and other connected appeals arising out of the judgment dated 05.05.2018, directed as under:-
"Hence, with a view to give quitus to the dispute and to give finality to the selections already made, we hold that the adjudication made by us will be confined to the appellants involved in the present appeals only. Their assessment shall be carried out in line with the adjudication made by us in the present appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are setting out the particulars of question(s) and corresponding answer/direction which need to be rechecked:
Subject Q.No. Direction Reasons
set out in
para
General Knowledge 8 Delete 1
General Knowledge 84 Option (2) is correct 3
Social Science 21 Option (3) is correct 4
Group-II Paper-II
General Knowledge-I 98 Option (2) is correct 9
Sanskrit 104 Option (1) is correct 13
As a result, all the appeal are allowed, as indicated above.
Needless to observe that after re-appraisal of their result in the light of the findings given by us, if the appellants march ahead of the last selected candidate, they shall be given appointment, subject of course, to their other eligibilities. The respondent Commission shall carry out requisite exercise and (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) (10 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] decline the result of the appellants within a period of three weeks from today."
Learned counsels submitted that the Division Bench did not direct disturbance of the persons already appointed in pursuance of the first select list based on erroneous answer key despite the Division Bench being very well within its knowledge as the learned counsel for the RPSC has submitted therein that it has already forwarded the list of selected candidates to the State Government and if the Court interferes with the answers, the adjudication may be confined to the appellants alone so that the right of the successful candidate not before the Court, are not affected.
Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that in Civil Appeals Nos.3658-3659 of 2020 arising out of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 12.03.2019 and other connected matters, a three-Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex court, despite disagreeing with the reasoning assigned by the Division Bench, declined to interfere with the same as five persons out of the 21 appellants therein were already appointed and the Hon'ble Apex Court was not inclined to upset their appointment.
Learned counsels submitted that this Court has vide order dated 03.10.2018 stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 27.09.2018 and the petitioners are continuing in service for last more than three years. They submitted that some of the petitioners have joined the service after resigning from their earlier service and some of them have become overage for any fresh appointment. They also submitted that confirmation order was passed by the respondents qua some of the petitioners during pendency of the writ petition on successful completion of the period of probation which, came to be withdrawn subsequently. (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(11 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] However, in any case, it establishes that performance of the petitioners has remained satisfactory during the period of probation.
Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has in case of Anmol Kumar Tiwari & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos. 429-430 of 2021 and other connected matters relying on its earlier judgment in case of Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494 and another connected matters, was pleased to held that where a person has been beneficiary of the select list prepared in an irregular manner but, came to be appointed without any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by him, he is entitled to be continued in service and his services cannot be terminated on account of the fact that the select list was prepared with irregularity. They, therefore, prayed that the writ petitions be allowed and order impugned dated 17.09.2018 be quashed.
Per contra, Mr. Nitin Jain, learned counsel for RPSC submits that the petitioners came to be appointed erroneously on account of provisional select list based on answer key which has been set aside by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Drawing attention of this Court towards a Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.07.2019 passed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal Writ No.1117/2019, Ashok Kumar Sharma and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters, he submitted that while declining any relief to the appellants therein who were also selected in pursuance of provisional select list dated 06.02.2018, the Division Bench directed the respondents to proceed with the selection on the basis of final select list dated (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) (12 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] 21.05.2019 and the waiting list dated 22.05.2019. He submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., Civil Appeal Nos.3649- 3650 of 2020 and other connected matters arising out of various Division Bench judgments of this Court, upheld the select list dated 21.05.2019 and the waiting list dated 22.05.2019 prepared on the basis of second answer key. Mr. Jain submitted that undeniably, name of the petitioners do not figure in the final select list dated 21.05.2019 and the waiting list dated 22.05.2019 and hence, they are not entitled for continuation in service. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of the writ petitions.
Mr. S. Zakawat Ali, learned Additional Government Counsel adopting the submissions made by Mr. Jain, submitted that the petitioners, who did not find place in the final merit list, were not entitled to be retained in service and their services have rightly been terminated vide order impugned dated 27.09.2018. He further submitted that their services have been terminated within a short span of five months from the date of appointment and hence, the judgments relied upon by learned counsels for the petitioners have no applicability in the present case.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
The controversy involved in these writ petitions is within a narrow compass. The only issue before this Court is as to whether the petitioners who came to be appointed based on the select list which has later been found to be erroneous on account of judgments rendered by this Court/Apex Court, are entitled to continue in service.
(Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(13 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] Indisputably, appointment of the petitioners was not based on any allegation of fraud or misrepresentation played by them. The order impugned dated 27.09.2018 terminating their services came to be passed on account of revised result in pursuance of change in option of certain answers by the expert committee constituted in pursuance of direction of this Court in various petitions. In case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra) arising out of the selection process in question, their Lordships of the Hon'ble Apex Court, despite disagreeing with the findings recorded by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Bhunda Ram (supra), refused to set aside the same as it would entail dislodging five persons already appointed on account of direction issued by the Division Bench. It was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment as under:
"14. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxThe Division Bench by its judgment dated 12.03.2019 committed an error in recording findings on the correctness of 05 questions by holding the opinion of the experts to be wrong. We are not setting aside the judgment as we are informed that 05 out of 21 appellants-therein have already been appointed and we are not inclined to upset their appointments."
True that their Lordships have upheld the select list dated 21.05.2019 and the waiting list dated 22.05.2019 prepared on the basis of second answer key; but, it is also obvious that they refused to interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench as they were not inclined to upset the appointment of 5 out of 21 appellants therein. It would be profitable to mention here that those 5 appellants came to be appointed much after the petitioners who were appointed vide order dated 20.04.2018. (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM)
(14 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] In case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 690 and another connected matters, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as under:
"20. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while re-evaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ petitioners, Respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the appellants should they be found to fall below the 'cut-off' mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consideration or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re-evaluation can determine the inter se position of the writ petitioners and the appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut off line.
21. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) (15 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list".
Their Lordships in case of Vikas Pratap Singh (supra) held as under:
"27. Admittedly, in the instant case the error committed by the respondent Board in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts could not be attributed to the appellants as they have neither been found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed qua the first merit list nor has the preparation of the erroneous model answer key or the specious result contributed to them. Had the contrary been the case, it would have justified their ouster upon re-evaluation and deprived them of any sympathy from this Court irrespective of their length of service.
28. In our considered view, the appellants have successfully undergone training and are efficiently serving the respondent State for more than three years and undoubtedly their termination would not only impinge upon the economic security of the appellants and their dependants but also adversely affect their careers. This would be highly unjust and grossly unfair to the appellants who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. However, their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to the appellants nor cause undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list.
29. Accordingly, we direct the respondent State to appoint the appellants in the revised merit list placing them at the bottom of the said list. The candidates who have crossed the minimum statutory age for appointment shall be accommodated with suitable age relaxation."
Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court has, in case of Anmol Kumar Tiwari (supra) held as under:
"9. Two issues arise for our consideration. The first relates to the correctness of the direction given by the High Court to reinstate the Writ Petitioners. The High Court directed reinstatement of the Writ (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) (16 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] Petitioners after taking into account the fact that they were beneficiaries of the select list that was prepared in an irregular manner. However, the High Court found that the Writ Petitioners were not responsible for the irregularities committed by the authorities in preparation of the select list. Moreover, the Writ Petitioners were appointed after completion of training and worked for some time. The High Court was of the opinion that the Writ Petitioners ought to be considered for reinstatement without affecting the rights of other candidates who were already selected. A similar situation arose in Vikas Pratap Singh's case (supra), where this Court considered that the Appellants-therein were appointed due to an error committed by the Respondents in the matter of valuation of answer scripts. As there was no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation committed by the Appellants therein, the termination of their services was set aside as it would adversely affect their careers. That the Appellants-therein had successfully undergone training and were serving the State for more than 3 years was another reason that was given by this Court for setting aside the orders passed by the High Court. As the Writ Petitioners are similarly situated to the Appellants in Vikas Pratap Singh's case (supra), we are in agreement with the High Court that the Writ Petitioners are entitled to the relief granted. Moreover, though on pain of Contempt, the Writ Petitioners have been reinstated and are working at present."
From the conspectus of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the unexceptional legal position which emerges is that if a person has been accorded appointment on the basis of irregular select list without allegation of fraud or misrepresentation by such person, his appointment should not ordinarily be interfered with. Contention of the learned counsels for the respondents that the petitions filed by Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and other similarly situated candidates whose roll numbers also figured in the result declared on 06.02.2018 based on erroneous answer key dated 30.08.2017, came to be dismissed (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) (17 of 17) [CW-22546/2018] by this Court as also by the Hon'ble Apex Court and hence, the petitioners also have no right to continue, does not merit acceptance in view that Shri Ashok Kumar Sharma and others similarly situated persons, undeniably, were either not offered appointment or they did not join in pursuance of appointment, if any, offered to them; whereas, all the petitioners were appointed vide order dated 20.04.2018, joined in pursuance thereof and are continuing in service for last more than three and half years.
The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are allowed. The order impugned dated 27.09.2018 is quashed. It is held that the petitioners are entitled to continue in service with consequential benefits. However, they shall be placed at bottom of the revised merit list.
The pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J Sudha/41-45 (Downloaded on 05/01/2022 at 09:03:41 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)