Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Prem Prakash Subodh S/O Shri ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 6 March, 2020
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3502/2020
1. Prem Prakash Subodh S/o Shri Shivnarayan, Aged About
29 Years, R/o Sunder Colony, In Front Of Midway, Gali No.
3, Distt. Dholpur (Raj.).
2. Himmat Lal S/o Rangi Katara, Aged About 39 Years, R/o
Village Ratanpura, Post Nougama, Tehsil Bagidora, Distt.
Banswara (Raj.).
3. Atma Ram S/o Ram K*umar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Ward No. 20, Sangaria, Tehsil - Sangaria, Distt.
Hanumangar (Raj.).
4. Pawan Kumar Katara S/o Shri Sankar Lal Katara, Aged
About 36 Years, R/o Village Haliya Ka Pada, Post
-Tamatiya Rathor, Tehsil - Gadi, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
5. Suresh Kumar S/o Narsi Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Ward No. 12, Village Devnagar, Tehsil Pilibanga, Distt.
Hanumangarh (Raj.) - 335803.
6. Aad Ram S/o Shri Gorkha Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o
Ward No. 10, Village And Post Panditawali, Tehsil
Pilibanga, Distt. Hanumangar (Raj.).
7. Santosh Kumar Damor S/o Dhan Ram Damor, Aged About
35 Years, R/o Village Kumhariya, Tehsil Aanandpuri, Distt.
Banswara (Raj.).
8. Magan Lal Pargi S/o Shri Lal Singh Pargi, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Gumanpura, Post Obla, Tehsil Anandpuri, Distt.
Banswara (Raj.).
9. Umesh Dindor S/o Champalal Dindor, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Nanabhukiya, Post Tamtiya, Tehsil
Anandpuri, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
10. Abhishek Meghwal S/o Shri Mohan Lal Meghwal, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Behind Sr. Secondary School Ground
Ram Niwas, New Colony Kherwara, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.).
11. Dinesh Meghawal S/o Shri Kalu Meghwal, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Barothi Bhilan, Post Katarwas, Tehsil
Kherwara, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.).
12. Kaluram Bhedi S/o Shri Amar Singh Bhedi, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Timbi (Ganeshpura), Moti Timbi Timbi, Distt.
Banswara (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM)
(2 of 15) [CW-3502/2020]
13. Shankar Lal Patel S/o Shri Ramuda Patel, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Village Bavdi, Post Dokar, Tehsil Anandpuri,
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
14. Arvind Kumar Garasiya S/o Shri Dhuleshwar Garasiya,
Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Timbi, Moti
Timbi, Bagidora, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
15. Dhanesh Maida S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Maida, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Mukam Jagta Rawat Ka Parda, Post
Surwaniya, Tehsil And Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
16. Kanhaiya Lal S/o Udiya, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Mukam
Lakheriwara, Post Devda, Tehsil - Ghatol, Distt. Banswara
(Raj.).
17. Sanjay Kumar Dindor S/o Shri Shankar Lal Dindor, Aged
About 30 Years, R/o Village Sunder, Post Bhachariya,
Tehsil And Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
18. Ratan Lal Ninama S/o Shri Rakma Ji Ninama, Aged About
42 Years, R/o Village Sunder, Post Bhachariya, Tehsil And
Distt. Banswara (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Medical And Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawan, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
3. Ganesh Lal Meena S/o Shri Pratap Lal Meena, R/o Village
Chiklar, Panchayat Samiti Pratapgarh, Distt. Pratapgarh.
4. Hemant Kumar Gothwal S/o Shri Suwa Lal Mahawar, R/o
77/20, Behind State Warehouse, Agra Road, Dausa, Distt.
Dausa-303303 (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13868/2018
1. Subhash Chander Roat S/o Ratan Lal Roat, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V And P Margiya, Post Antri, Tehsil Dungarpur, District Dungarpur (Raj.).
2. Sumitra Choudhary D/o Ramnarayan Choudhary W/o Ramesh Chand Choudhary, Aged About 35 Years, Vpo Kothun, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur.
3. Dinesh Kumar Meena S/o Kanhaia Lal Meena, Aged About (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) (3 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] 27 Years, R/o Village Fatehganj, Post Roop Pura, Tehsil Uniyara, District Tonk (Raj.)
4. Yogesh Kumar Meena S/o Shivji Lal Meena, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Bansoli, Post Modsa, Tehsil Nainwa, District Bundi (Raj.)
5. Vishnu Kumar Badetiya S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Badetiya, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 47, Mansinghpura Raigar Basti, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
6. Mool Chand Meena S/o Shrinarayan Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Kotjewar Road, Boraj, Tehsil Dudu, District Jaipur.
7. Harendra Singh S/o Shri Meva Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Dhondi Ka Pura, Post Kotpura, Tehsil Mania, District Dholpur (Raj.)
8. Deendayal Jatav S/o Sohan Lal Jatav, Aged About 38 Years, R/ob Village Nagla Madhopur, Post Sonkhari, Via Kherli, Tehsil Kathumar, District Alwar
9. Ramkishan Goswami S/o Kailashi Goswami, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Chorakhera, Post Tastmo, Tehsil Saipau, District Dholpur (Raj.)
10. Sajeev Joshi S/o Heera Lal Joshi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Plot No,.2-B, Shanti Nagar, Hatwara Road, Karni Colony, Near Ravinder School, Jaipur.
11. Anita Kumari D/o Mahipal, W/o Praveen Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Post Bakara, Tehsil Jhunjhunu, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
12. Suman Kumari D/o Tarachand W/o Susheel Kumar, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No.11, Near To Hawai Patti, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
13. Sushila Poonia D/o Mohan Singh Poonia, W/o Rajesh Kumar, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Pipali, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
14. Chhoti Devi D/o Ganesh Ram Bhinchar W/o Om Prakash Gora, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Jheegar Chhoti, Via Katrathal, Tehsil Dhod, District Sikar (Raj.)
15. Suman Kumari Meel W/o Vijay Poonia, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Post Rajpura, Via Balaran, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar (Raj.)
16. Madhu Mahla D/o Tara Chand Mahla, W/o Kuldeep, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ward No.24, Rajpura, Pilani (Raj.) (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) (4 of 15) [CW-3502/2020]
17. Nayantara D/o Santosh Kumar W/o Satyaveer, Aged About 41 Years, R/o G-25, Indra Nagar, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
18. Kiran Choudhary D/o Prabhu Dayal W/o Om Prakash, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kathdiya Ki Dhani, Johata, Jaipur.
19. Mamta Choudhary D/o Raghunath Singh, W/o Vikas Achara, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Mamta Choudhary W/o Vikas Govindpura, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
20. Koushlya D/o Maya Chand W/o Kishan Prakash, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Shyallu Khurd, Post Sehi Kalan, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
21. Poonam D/o Mam Chand W/o Anil Dayal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Chttosa, Tehsil Buhana, Jhunjhunu.
22. Suresh Gahan S/o Girdhari Lal Gahan, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Behind Shishu Mandir School, Ward No.14, Vpo Badagaon, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
23. Vishal Kumar Pargi S/o Keshav Lal Pargi, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Navagahara, Post Tamatiya, Tehsil Anandpuri, District Banswara (Raj.)
24. Manju Meel D/o Pooran Mal Meel W/o Subhash Kumar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 2G-14, Opp. Nehru Park, Salasar Road, Shastri Nagar, Sikar (Raj.
25. Manju Kumari D/o Arjun Lal W/o Ram Kishan, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Bherupura, Tehsil Chhod, District Sikar (Raj.)
26. Hakim Singh S/o Amrat Lal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Jareela, Post Bhawanpura, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
27. Manoj Kumar S/o Shiv Charan Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village New Jiroli, Post Tehsil Dholpur, District Dholpur (Raj.)
28. Yadvendra Singh D/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Lal Darwaja Bayana, Bharatpur (Raj.)
29. Kishor Kumar Maida S/o Dhangi Maida, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Badliya Tehsil Ghatol, District Banswara (Raj.)
30. Lalit Kumar Damor S/o Moti Lal Damor, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Oda, Arthuna, Teshil Garhi, District Banswara (Raj.) (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) (5 of 15) [CW-3502/2020]
31. Piyush Pargi S/o Bhanu Pratap Pargi, Aged About 29 Years, R/o V/p Diwara Chhota, Tehsil Galiyakot, District Dungarpur (Raj.)
32. Amita D/o Hawa Singh W/o Rakesh Kumar Katewa, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 222/2, Harishankar Veg Restaurant, Raja Park, Jaipur (Raj.)
33. Mukesh Kumar Jatav S/o Ratan Singh Jatav, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village And Post Babekhar Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
34. Yadram Yadav S/o Bhairu Singh Yadav, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Bhaloji, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
35. Surendra Singh S/o Parmendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Lal Darwaji, Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
36. Babu Lal Diwan S/o Dunga Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Pratappura, Via Jobner, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Raj.)
37. Ranjeet Kumar S/o Hardev Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Nagla Tota, Pichoona, Pichuna, Bharatpur (Raj.)
38. Sunil Kumar S/o Mahaveer Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Keshripura, Post Sithal, Via Baragaon Udaipurwati, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
39. Yogendra Singh S/o Rameshwar Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Bharounda Kalan, Via Islampur, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu(Raj.)
40. Anita D/o Chhote Lal W/o Daulat Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Kairwara, Post Haldina, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar (Raj.)
41. Rakesh Kumar S/o Ram Karan Raigar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o 66, Mansinghpura Ragar Busti, Tonk Road, Jaipur (Raj.)
42. Giriraj Prasad Verma, Son Of Anandi Lal Verma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village Manpura, Post Madho Singh Pura, Chaksu, Jaipur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary Medical And Health Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM)(6 of 15) [CW-3502/2020]
2. The Director, Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawan, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17112/2018
1. Vipin Bhai Regar Son Of Sh. Pratap Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Anjana Tehsil Deograh District Rajsmand (Raj.)
2. Naveen Kumar Son Of Nand Lal, Resident Of Village Sangawas Post Miyala Vaya Barar Tehsil Deogarh Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.)
3. Lal Chand Masar Son Of Roopaji Masar, B/c Bhil Resident Of Regniya Tehsil Ghatol, Distt. Banswada (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through The Principal Secretary, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Director, Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawan, C-
Scheme, Jaipur.
----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2262/2019
1. Naresh Kumar Raigar S/o Shri Hema Raigar, Aged About 31 Years, By Caste Raigar, Resident Of Near The P.h.c., Jilota, Rajasamand, Rajasthan.
2. Nitin Kumar Meena S/o Shri Kaliya Meena, Aged About 32 Years, By Caste Meena, Resident Of Village Tamboliya, Tehsil Simalwara/ Sakarshi, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principle, Medial And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawan, C-
Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM)
(7 of 15) [CW-3502/2020]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah on behalf of
Mr. Mahendra Shah, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. MS Singhi, Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Darsh Pareek, Adv.
Mr. VB Sharma, AAG with
Mr. Prakhar Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Tushar Pareek, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Chaudhary, Adv.
Ms. Vidhi Maheshwari, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Order 06/03/2020 (1). The petitioners by way of these writ petitions have prayed as under:-
"S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3502/2020:-
1. The impugned order dated 30.05.2018 withdrawing the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 and the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 for 6035 vacancies which included 4514 left out vacancies of Nurse Gr.II in the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
2. The impugned advertisement dated 30.05.2018 for 617 vacancies in TPS area may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside;
3. The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof to give appointments to the petitioners on the post of Nurse Gr.II in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 with all consequential benefit in the interest of justice.
4. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.(Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM)
(8 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13868/2018:-
1. The impugned order dated 30.05.2018 withdrawing the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 and the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 for 6035 vacancies which included 4514 left out vacancies of Nurse Gr.II in the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
2. The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof to give appointments to the petitioners on the post of Nurse Gr.II in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 with all consequential benefit in the interest of justice.
3. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17112/2018:-
1. The impugned order dated 30.05.2018 withdrawing the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 and the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 for 6035 vacancies which included 4514 left out vacancies of Nurse Gr.II in the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
2. The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof to give appointments to the petitioners on the post of Nurse Gr.II in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 with all consequential benefit in the interest of justice.
3. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioner.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2262/2019:-
(a). The impugned order dated 30.05.2018 withdrawing the advertisement dated 09.04.2018 and the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 for 6035 vacancies which included 4514 left out (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) (9 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] vacancies of Nurse Grade - II in the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 may kindly be declared illegal and arbitrary and therefore, same may kindly be quashed and set aside.
(b). The respondents may kindly be directed by issuing the writ of mandamus, order or direction in the nature thereof to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Nurse Grade - II in pursuance to the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 with all consequential benefits in the interest of justice.
(c). Any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly also be passed in favour of the petitioners in the interest of justice."
(2). Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are candidates who applied under the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 for the post of Nurse Gr.II and had been placed in the select list in the advertisement which was published in 2013. There were in all 15773 vacancies advertised for Nurse Gr.II and 12278 vacancies were advertised for Public Health Nurse. The State Government vide Notification dated 28.06.2013 issued a separate advertisement on 10.07.2013 for regular selection on several posts which were created by adding a separate cadre under NRHM under the Rules of 1965 which did not include the post of Nurse Gr.II. Lateron, taking a policy decision, the NRHM posts which were advertised vide advertisement dated 10.07.2013 were abolished and, therefore, the advertisement was withdrawn. However, in the aforesaid process, there was no decision taken to abolish the post of Nurse Gr.II which was advertised in 2013 and, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to be considered against the posts which had been advertised in 2013 and the contention that the posts of Nurse Gr.II had been (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) (10 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] abolished was erroneous and the petitioners ought to have been considered against those posts. Learned Counsel has relied on the Note Sheet which has been produced as Annexure-12 to contend that the posts which were advertised in 2013 were actually the posts under the Medical & Health Services alone and were not under the NRHM. It was further submitted that the earlier judgment which was passed by the coordinate Bench in S.B.C.W.P. No.15961/2015-Rajkumari Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. & other connected writ petitions, the State Government did not come out with correct facts which resulted in a finding given by the Court that the reduction of posts in the advertisement was not required to be interfered with and there was no illegality committed. However, in view of the facts which have come on record now, it is apparent that the Court was mislead at that relevant time and there were no NRHM posts.
(3). Keeping in view the said aspects, this Court had issued notices and the Additional Government Counsel appearing at that relevant time furnished an undertaking that the result of recruitment process shall not be declared on 19.07.2018. The said undertaking was directed to be continued subsequently by this Court with directions to the State to file its reply. This Court had also asked during proceedings to file affidavit with regard to the exact decision which was taken in relation to the reduction of posts.
(4). The Advocate General submits that on 9.4.2018, an advertisement was issued which mentions 4514 posts. The said advertisement was later on withdrawn as certain number of (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) (11 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] vacancies were left unnoticed and a fresh advertisement was issued on 30.05.2018 advertising 6035 posts for Nurse Gr.II. It is submitted that under the said advertisement, the entire selection process has been conducted and select lists have already been prepared. However, on account of aforesaid undertaking recruitment process is come to stand still and in view of the epidemic relating to Swine Flu and Corona, it became necessary that the recruitment of Nurse Gr.II must be done at the earliest.
However, the Advocate General to shorten the entire controversy placed the original note sheets relating to the entire selections which was conducted for the post of Nurse Gr.II from 2011-12 to till date. Learned Advocate General submits that as per the note sheets, it is apparent that after the declaration of the Chief Minister in the Finance Budget of 2012-2013 to fill-up the posts in Medical & Health Department and it was decided to fill NRHM posts of Nurse Gr.II which were 7459 at that relevant time in accordance with the Rules of 1965 and, therefore, when the advertisement was issued in 2013, total number of 15773 posts were advertised which included 7459 sanctioned posts under the NRHM of Nurse Gr.II.
(5). It is noticed that at the time of calculation of total number of posts, the department considered the existing 7459 posts of Nurse Gr.II of NRHM plus 3500 posts created under the NRHM vide order dated 14.02.2013 and accordingly, the total number of posts increased from 12273 to 15773. It is noticed that after the advertisement was issued, a policy decision was taken not to include the posts under NRHM under the Medical & (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) (12 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] Health Services Rules, 1965 as the same were to be filled on contract basis resultantly the said posts were reduced and thereafter, the said posts of NRHM were reduced from the advertisement dated 26.02.2013 and the appointments were made on total number of 11259 by adding the additional posts which were created under the Medical & Health Services Rules and in the various medical colleges. The said issue was examined earlier by this Court in the aforesaid judgment of Rajkumari (cited supra) and the coordinate Bench upheld the decision taken by the State Government. The petitioners have come up again before this Court on account of the reason that a particular exact number of posts have been added namely 4540 posts were advertised under the new advertisement dated 9.4.2018 and, therefore, they contend that these 4540 posts are those NRHM posts which have now been again included.
(6). Taking note of the entire note sheets as above, this Court is satisfied that the posts which have been presently advertised do not form part of NRHM posts. It is also informed by the Advocate General that so far as NRHM posts are concerned, they have been separately advertised in 2016 and they are to be filled on contract basis. This Court also noticed that the advertisement dated 9.4.2018 has been withdrawn and a fresh advertisement has been issued on 30.05.2018 wherein 6035 posts of Nurse Gr.II have been advertised.
(7). Keeping in view above, the contention of the petitioners is found to be without basis.
(Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM)(13 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] (8). Learned Advocate General also submits that reduction
of posts or addition of posts is an exclusive domain of the State Government and as per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1965, the composition of strength of service provides that the strength of posts in each group shall be such, as may be determined by the Government, from time to time provided that the Government may-
"(a) create any post, permanent or temporary, from time to time as may be found necessary; and
(b) leave unfilled or hold in abeyance or abolish any post, permanent or temporary, from time to time, without thereby entitling any person to any compensation."
On the strength of the aforesaid provision, learned Advocate General submits that even in advertisement, it is mentioned that the posts may be increased or decreased thus, learned Advocate General contends that no candidate or aspirant who participated in the selection process has a right to contend that a number of posts which have been advertised must be necessarily filled. The learned Counsel has relied on State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chopra (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 161 to contend that no individual right is available with the candidate for the said purpose.
(9). Per contra, learned Counsel for the petitioners however, submits that the reduction of posts must be on bonafide grounds and it cannot be arbitrary.
(10) I have considered the submissions. (11) Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India- (1993) 1 SCC 154 in para 7 has held as under:-
(Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM)(14 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] "7. It is not correct to say that if a number of vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate number of candidates are found fit, the successful candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified candidates to apply for recruitment and on their selection they do not acquire any right to the post. Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the recruitment test, and no discrimination can be permitted. This correct position has been consistently followed by this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha and Others, [1974] 1 SCR 165; Miss Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana and Others, [1986] 4 SCC 268 and Jitendra Kumar and Others v. State of Punjab and Others, [1985] 1 SCR 899."
(12). This Court finds that it is not a case where a persons having lesser merit than the petitioners were given appointment in the year 2013 selections. The selection process of 2013 is already over. The contention of the petitioners that the reduction of posts was unjustified has also been examined and rejected by this Court in the case of Rajkumari (supra). A fresh writ petition on the same count would not be maintainable. This Court noticed that under the fresh advertisement which has been issued on 9.4.2018 was posts which were made available in between 2013 and 2018. It is also noticed that the advertisement dated 9.4.2018 was withdrawn and a fresh advertisement has been issued on 30.05.2018 which includes additional number of posts for Nurse Gr.II and total number of 6035 posts have been advertised. The process for the said selection has already been completed by the respondents. Those petitioners who were eligible under the advertisement of 2018 could have and may have (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) (15 of 15) [CW-3502/2020] participated and may find place in the present selection. However, even if the said position is not to be found, this Court holds that no candidate or aspirant has a right of appointment available under the Constitution. The Courts have only recognized a candidate right of consideration for appointment. The present writ petitions are found to be solely on the basis that the number of posts which were advertised vide advertisement dated 9.4.2018 were incidentally almost the same number of posts which had been reduced in the earlier advertisement of 2013 as this Court has already reached to the finding that the posts which were reduced in 2013 were those of NRHM and not cadered posts under the Rules of 1965. The challenge to the advertisement is found to be baseless.
(13). Keeping in view the aforesaid finding the undertaking of the State Government directed to be continued is allowed to be withdrawn. The respondents are left free to proceed further with the selection process under the advertisement dated 30.05.2018 and take all steps to immediately fill up the posts.
(14). Accordingly, no case for interference is made out.
The writ petitions are found to be devoid of merit and the same are dismissed. All pending applications stand dismissed.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J N.Gandhi/Prerit-494-497 (Downloaded on 07/03/2020 at 09:32:25 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)