Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Avadhesh Kumar Jangid vs State Of Rajasthan on 20 July, 2020
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR (1) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2094/2019
1. Kuldeep Kumar S/o Shri Raji Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Chak 1 Kwm Sansardesar, Post Office 3 Rjd (Mahadevwali), Tehsil Chhattargarh, District Bikaner, Rajasthan .
2. Gopal Ram Nain S/o Shri Satyanarayan Nain, Aged About 30 Years, Village Khartwas, Post Dhana Bhakaran, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
3. Mukesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Jangid, Aged About 28 Years, Village Kotra, Post Borda, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
4. Rishi Raj Nagar S/o Shri Ram Lal Nagar,, Aged About 28 Years, Village And Post Piplod, Tehsl Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.
5. Shreni Dan Charan S/o Shri Hukmi Dan Charan, Aged About 27 Years, Vpo Tarla, Tehsil Serwa, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. Nitesh Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Kanawas Road, Balunda, District Pali, Rajasthan.
7. Nema Ram Solanki S/o Shri Gopa Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Village And Post Doli, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. Ratan La Saini S/o Shri Lallu Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Mithi Kothi, Vpo Mitrapura, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents Connected With (2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2247/2019 (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:23 PM) (2 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
1. Om Prakash S/o Shri Rajpal, Aged About 30 Years, Vpo Tibbi, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
2. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, Jharsar Kandhlan, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
3. Satveer S/o Shri Prabhu Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Vpo Pandreutiba, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
4. Ram Raj Meena S/o Shri Sunder Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, Village Dhannaka Johpra, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
5. Ram Ratan S/o Shri Karni Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Vpo Bhimsar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
6. Kuldeep Meena S/o Shri Subhash Chandra, Aged About 25 Years, Village Rajeev Nagar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
7. Hari Ram S/o Shri Shatan Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Vpo Phirod, Tehsil And District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
8. Satya Narayan Regar S/o Shri Ram Karan Regar, Aged About 34 Years, Vpo Ronua, Bundi, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
9. Bhairu Ram S/o Shri Kishan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Jeengar Mohalla, Gandhi Chowk, Tehsil Pokran, District Jaisalmer, Rajasthan.
10. Mukesh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Sardar Mal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Vpo Devka Harwada, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
11. Arvind Kumar Gochar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 24 Years, Village Kodkya, Tehsil Keshorai Patan, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
12. Kana Ram Prajapati S/o Shri Rampal Prajapati, Aged About 33 Years, Vpo Dodwari, Tonk, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
13. Vaseem Ahmad S/o Shri Daulat Khan, Aged About 28 Years, Guru Vatika, Goner Road, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Brijesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Matadeen Swami, Aged About 33 Years, Behind Govt. Primary School, Sevra, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:23 PM)(3 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
15. Sukhdev Regar S/o Shri Nanu Ram Regar, Aged About 34 Years, Vpo Shambhugarh, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
16. Parwat Singh Meena S/o Shri Ladu Lal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, Village Bindhya Bhata, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
17. Rajendra Bhati S/o Shri Nathu Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Vpo Kitalsar, Nagaur, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
18. Manoj Kumar Khateek S/o Shri Gopal Lal Khateek, Aged About 32 Years, Vpo Bassi, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
19. Gaytri Pilaniya D/o Shri Babu Lal Pilaniya, Aged About 23 Years, Village Lodsar, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
20. Ganesh Garg S/o Shri Hanuman Ram Garg, Aged About 28 Years, Vpo Adarsh Dhoondha, Tehsil And District Barmer, Rajasthan.
21. Durga Shankar Meena S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Village Dhikla, Post Kanwara, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (3) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2383/2019
1. Rajendra Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Jharsar Kandhlan, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
2. Satveer S/o Shri Prabhu Ram,, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Pandreutiba, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
3. Ram Raj Meena S/o Shri Sunder Lal Meena,, Aged About (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:23 PM) (4 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] 33 Years, R/o Village Dhannaka Johpra, Tehsil Deoli, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
4. Satya Narayan Regar S/o Shri Ram Karan Regar,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Ronua, Bundi, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
5. Brijesh Kumar Swami S/o Shri Matadeen Swami,, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Behind Govt. Primary School, Sevra, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Arvind Kumar Gochar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad,, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Kodkya, Tehsil Keshorai Patan, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
7. Durga Shankar Meena S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal Meena,, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Dhikla, Post Kanwara, Tehsil Dooni, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
8. Sukhdev Regar S/o Shri Nanu Ram Regar,, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Vpo Shanbhugarh, Tehsil Asind, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (4) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6576/2019
1. Veerma Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kotda, Post Vediya, Tehsil Ahor, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
2. Laxmi D/o Shri Mitha Lal,, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Agewa Road, Fouji Circle, Bera Lunayat, Jaitaran, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
3. Bhagwana Ram S/o Shri Meva Ram,, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Post Jato Ki Basti, Gardiya, Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
4. Vikash Chand Meena S/o Shri Ranjeet Meena,, Aged (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:23 PM) (5 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Mitrapura, Tehsil Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
5. Ladu Ram Dhaka S/o Shri Kishan Lal,, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dhako Ki Dhani, Post Pamana, Tehsil Raniwada, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
6. Suman Sharma D/o Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma,, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Dhanoti Bari, Tehsil Rajgarh, Via Sidhmukh District Churu, Rajasthan.
7. Ashok Kumar S/o Shri Heera Lal Vishnoi,, Aged About 26 Years, R/o V/p Niwaj, Pachpadra City, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
8. Mukhtesh Prajapati D/o Shri Ramdayal Prajapati,, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward No. 24, Mahupura, Baswa Road, Bandikuni, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
9. Vaja Ram S/o Shri Kesha Ram,, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Dantiwas, Post Punasa, Tehsil Bhinmal, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
10. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohar Singh,, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Mundpuri, Kalan, Post Harsoli, Tehsil Govindgarh, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
11. Ganesh Kumar Kalbi S/o Shri Ramaram Kalbi,, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Jain Mandir Gali, Kojra, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
12. Anil Mehra S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Mehra,, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Nagdev Mohalla, Main Road Atru, District Baran, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (5) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10133/2019 Kishor Singh Chadana S/o Shri Sohan Singh Chandana, Aged (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:23 PM) (6 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] About 25 Years, R/o Village Tarot, Post Sakroda, Tehsil And District Rajsamand, Rajasthan. (Date Of Birth I. E. 09.09.1993)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
5. District Establishment Committee Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (6) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11295/2019
1. Sharawan Singh S/o Shri Hakam Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Sarguwala, Post Ratrari, Tehsil Gadra Road, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
2. Manoj Vyas S/o Shri Om Prakash Vyas, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vyas Mohalla, Pisangan, Tehsil Pisangan, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
3. Santosh Kanwar D/o Shri Sumer Singh Rathore, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 2, Gyatri Nagar, Churu, District Churu, Rajasthan.
4. Hanuman Ram S/o Shri Naga Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sutharo Ki Dhani, Sohada, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
5. Dhanraj Jakhar S/o Shri Kheta Ram Jakhar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Gandhi Nagar, Khadeen, Tehsil Ramsar, District Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(7 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (7) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11328/2019
1. Amit Kumar S/o Shri Magharam Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, Kalu Road, Lunkaransar, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
2. Neha Sharma D/o Shri Bri Bhushan Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, Chawandiya, Jahazpur, Tehsil Jahazpur, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. Prakash Chand Bairwa S/o Shri Batti Lal Bairwa, Aged About 30 Years, Villager Naharsinghpura, Tehsil Bamanwas, District Sawai Madhopur, Rajasthan.
4. Heera Lal Saini S/o Shri Gajanand Saini, Aged About 24 Years, Vpo Ranoli, Tehsil Peeplu, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (8) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13524/2019 Sani Dan Charan S/o Shri Dungar Ram Charan, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Bogasani, Post Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (8 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (9) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14437/2019
1. Sushil Kumar Gour S/o Chand Mal Gour, Aged About 25 Years, Village Berwa, Vpo Berwa, Tehsil Deedwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Shrawan Kumar S/o Purushotam, Aged About 25 Years, Village Chhajusar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
3. Manisha Chouhan D/o Ganesh Singh Chouhan, Aged About 40 Years, Village Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Naresh Meena S/o Ramkaran Meena, Aged About 27 Years, V/p Baingana, Tehsil Baran, District Baran, Rajasthan.
5. Hari Shanker Meena S/o Mohan Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, V/p Bajar, Tehsil Talera, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
6. Himmat Lal Salvi S/o Tola Ram, Aged About 34 Years, V/p Farara, Tehsil Rajsamand, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
7. Kamod Bera D/o Kishna Ram, Aged About 23 Years, V/p Idwa, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
8. Priyanka Sharma D/o Uttam Chand Sharma, Aged About 27 Years, V/p Baharko Kalan, Tehsil Reni, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
9. Kapil Dev S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 38 Years, Village Ridmalsar, Tehsil Padampur, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
10. Santra Takhar D/o Shishapal Takhar, Aged About 27 Years, V/p Badhal, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
11. Manish Kumar Sharma S/o Shiv Dayal Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, Village Shekhpur, Tehsil Wazirpur, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(9 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
12. Nirmal Sardiwal S/o Braj Raj Sardiwal, Aged About 28 Years, Shri Magra, Merta City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
13. Rakesh Kumar S/o Shobha Ram, Aged About 29 Years, V/p Sakrawada, Tehsil Kishanganj, District Baran, Rajasthan.
14. Peer Singh S/o Ganpat Singh, Aged About 29 Years, Danji Ki Hodi, Tehsil And District Barmer, Rajasthan.
15. Chanda Goswami D/o Om Prakash Puri Goswami, Aged About 36 Years, Kelwara, Tehsil Kumbhalgarh, District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
16. Vinod Kumar Sharma S/o Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Village Brahmano Ka Luhariya, Gothara, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
17. Bhupender Kumar S/o Het Ram, Aged About 31 Years, Chak 16 Md, Matoriyanwali Dhani, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
18. Karan Chand S/o Jhanda Singh, Aged About 28 Years, Village Kharliyan, Post Likhmisar, Tehsil Pilibangan, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
19. Hitesh Kumar Sindhi S/o Satish Kumar Sindhi, Aged About 28 Years, Nearby Katla Masjid, Kekri, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
20. Balwant Kumar S/o Maniram Chanwaria, Aged About 28 Years, Village Satyun, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
21. Lovekush Kumar Meena S/o Ramswaroop Meena, Aged About 26 Years, V/p Bajad, Tehsil Talera, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (10 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
----Respondents
(10) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14599/2019
1. Mahendra Kumar Sharma S/o Jagdeesh, Aged About 35 Years, Vpo Kalsada, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
2. Hitesh Kumar S/o Foosaram, Aged About 28 Years, V/p Dakatra, Tehsil And District Jalore Rajasthan.
3. Arvind Kumar Solanki S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 31 Years, Village Ekorasi, Post Jatnangla, Tehsil Hindaun City, District Karauli, Rajasthan.
4. Ashok Kumar S/o Baloo Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Vpo Kalsara, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
5. Meva Ram S/o Kistur Das, Aged About 37 Years, Mukhatra, Tehsil Raniwara, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
6. Kishor Singh Chadana S/o Sohan Singh Chadana, Aged About 26 Years, Village Tarot, Post Sakroda, Tehsil And District Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
7. Deepak Vyas S/o Dilip Kumar Vyas, Aged About 25 Years, Brahmpuri Ravta Road, Bilawas, Tehsil Sojat City, District Pali, Rajasthan.
8. Madan Lal S/o Kapoora Ram, Aged About 31 Years, 176, Meghwalo Ka Bas, Bangri, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (11) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16139/2019
1. Sanjay Chaudhary S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Ward No. 5, Jato Ka Mohala, Sangathiya, Post Lalaniya, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(11 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
2. Arvind Singh Rathaur S/o Shri Ambika Singh Rathaur, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 10, A Block, Jagnnathpuri Ii, Triveni Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rakesh Kumar Gurjar S/o Shri Arjun Lal Gurjar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Bagwara, Via Morija, Tehsil Amer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Girish Shrimali S/o Shri Keshav Lal Shrimali, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Bhutala, Tehsil Badgaon, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.
5. Pankaj Upreti S/o Shri Ishwari Datt Upreti, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 65/293, Heerapath, Mansarover, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Sukh Ram S/o Shri Hardat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kinkrali, Post Sonari, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
7. Umesh Chand Sharma S/o Shri Bhajan Lal Sharma, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Harijan Basti, Kumher Gate, Tehsil And District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
8. Nirmal Kumar Jangir S/o Shri Prahlad Rai, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Kathawala, Post Yarlipura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
9. Harish Kumar S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Satyun, Post Satyun, Tehsil Tarangar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
10. Bhishan Lal S/o Shri Ram Chandra Swami, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo Satyun, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
11. Kishor Kumar S/o Shri Dhara Rami, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chhabo Kas Bas, Falka, Tehsil Jeitaran, District Pali, Rajasthan.
12. Jagdish Meena S/o Shri Sundar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Dei, Tehsil Nainwan, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
13. Kamlesh Kumar Yadav S/o Shri Hanuman Sahai Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Shyampura, Via Maid, Post Palari, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
14. Kallu Ram Mahawar S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Mahawar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bada Bas Khedli, Darwaja, V/p Bhandarej, Tehsil And District Dausa, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(12 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
15. Chanchal Saini D/o Shri Rajendra Kumar Saini, Aged About 32 Years, R/o New Sanganer Road, Sodala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
16. Usha Kumari D/o Shri Dai Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Vpo Bhojasar, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
17. Padma Thakral D/o Shri Govind Ram Sachdev, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Kamla Colony, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
18. Sarita Kumari Kumawat D/o Shri Kedar Prasad Kumawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bhagat Singh Colony, Newai, Tehsil Newai, District Tonk, Rajasthan.
19. Dhanesh Chand Jatav S/o Shri Dhani Ram Jatav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ambedkar Colony, Mahawa, Tehsil Mahawa, District Dausa, Rajasthan.
20. Sita Ram Kumhar S/o Shri Ram Lal Kumhar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Surdhana Chouhanan, Tehsil And District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
21. Suresh Kumar S/o Shri Ramdev Gaina, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Bhangiwad, Post Salasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
22. Shiv Kumar S/o Shri Dashrath Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Santruk, Tehsil Kumher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
23. Mahender Singh S/o Shri Ram Kumar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Santpura, Tehsil Sangariya, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
24. Bhola Shankar Nagar S/o Shri Nemi Chand Nagar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Gothara, Tehsil Hindoli, District Bundi, Rajasthan.
25. Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Gugan Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Kharsandi, Tehsil Nohar, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
26. Mula Ram Nitharwal S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal Nitharwal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Kakot, Post Prempura, Tehsil Kuchaman City, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
27. Navin Bijarania S/o Shri Gopal Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Rajiyasar Meetha, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
28. Manohar Lal S/o Shri Munshi Ram, Aged About 30 (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (13 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] Years, R/o Village Dholpaliya, Tehsil Bhadra, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
29. Harish Kumar S/o Shri Barkhandi Lal, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Jaicholi, Par, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (12) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1093/2020 Hiran Kumar Rajvanshi S/o Shri Haridev Rajvanshi, Aged About 34 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Ward No. 7, Near Canal Road Sadul Shahar, Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents (13) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1200/2020
1. Rakesh Kumar S/o Champa Lal Pareek, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village And Post Pulasar, Ward No. 06, Unchawa Bas, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu.
2. Mohar Pal Meena S/o Shri Shravan Ram Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Budhpura, Post Dariba Project, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.).
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(14 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
3. Nita Meena D/o Shri Gopi Ram Meena, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Dola Ka Bas, Via Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.
4. Meha Ram S/o Pabu Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Hamirana, Post Akla, Tehsil Khinwsar, District Nagaur.
5. Neeraj Kumar S/o Lok Ram, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village And Post Nunia Gothra, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu.
6. Mahipal S/o Hari Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Antroli Kalan, Post Antroli Khurd, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur.
7. Vikas Dhakar S/o Jagdish Prasad Dhakar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Plot No. 87, Shashtri Nagar, Tonk.
8. Saroj Maharya D/o Jagdish Prasad, Aged About 30 Years, W/o Rajesh Baloda, R/o Village And Post Ringus, Tehsil Srimadhopur, District Sikar.
9. Ghanshyam Sharma S/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Dhani Gagoriyan, Village Cheethwari, Post Morija, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur.
10. Lokendra Singh S/o Bhawain Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village And Post Sukhwasi, Tehsil And District Nagaur.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents (14) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1419/2020
1. Soni Bishnoi D/o Mala Ram Bishnoi W/o Satyam Bishnoi, Aged About 30 Years, Village Peethawas, Tehsil And District Jodhpur (Raj.)
2. Asha Teli D/o Shyam Lal Teli W/o Ratan Lal Teli, Aged About 28 Years, Ward No.15, Ambedkar Colony, Bhilwara (Raj.)
3. Yagyaprabha D/o Vishnu Dutt Sharma W/o Shyam Sunder Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, B/c Sharma, R/o (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (15 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] Ward No.11, Aligarh, District Tonk (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Raj., Through Its Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director/commissioner, Elementary Education Rajasthan Bikaner.
----Respondents (15) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1895/2020
1. Suresh Kumar Jat S/o Ram Nath Jat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Dhani Jhilawali, Post Dhani Guman Singh, Tehsil Khandela, District Sikar (Raj.).
2. Neeraj Kumar S/o Kishan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Kathera Chouth, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur.
3. Nirmala Kumari D/o Bhagirath Mal, W/o Suresh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Mardatu Badi, Post Bibipur Chhota, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar.
4. Vinod Kumar S/o Baidhanath Sharma, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village And Post Pahari, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar.
5. Kuldeep Sharma S/o Vishnu Kumar Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village And Post Chakeri, Tehsil And District Sawai Madhopur.
6. Urmila Sharma D/o Bajrang Lal Sharma, W/o Manmohan Dadhich, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 651, Barkat Nagar, In Front Of Phed Office, Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.
7. Vikram Singh S/o Banshidhar, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Pathana, Post Pacheri Kalan, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu.
8. Balram S/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village And Post Baniyala, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu.
9. Pawan Kumar S/o Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Chak 1 Apd, Post Sukhchainpura, Tehsil Srivijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(16 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
10. Deepika D/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village And Post Ghardana Khurd, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Respondents (16) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2107/2020
1. Sunil Kumar S/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 25 Years, Kanhewala, Ward No.1, Tehsil Pilibanga And District Hanumangarh (Raj.)
2. Narendra Kumar Fatehpuria S/o Prahalad Mahawar, Aged About 25 Years, Nabhawala, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh, District Jaipur. (Raj.)
3. Vinod Kumar Goutam S/o Naval Kishore Goutam, Aged About 25 Years, D-143, Anita Colony, Rampura Road, Saganer, District Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Diksha Gouttam D/o Shambhu Kumar Goutam, Aged About 26 Years, Ward No.17, Nainwan, District Bundi (Raj.)
5. Neha Sharma D/o Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, Kumhar Mohalla, Magalpura, Jhalawar, District Jhalawar. (Raj.)
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Principal Secretary, Education Department (Elementary) Government Of Rajasthan Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan Bikaner.
----Respondents (17) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2137/2020
1. Avadhesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Amara Ram Jangid, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Agewa, Tehsil Jaitaran, (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (17 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] District Pali, Rajasthan.
2. Varsha Sen D/o Shri Satish Chandra Sen, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Near Math Mandir, Ojha Galia, Mandal, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
3. Suresh S/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Dhamana Ka Goliya, Post Dhamana, Tehsil Sanchore, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
4. Mahesh Kumar Gaur S/o Shri Ramswaroop, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Manch, Post Ata, Tehsil And District Karauli, Rajasthan.
5. Ramawatar S/o Shri Ramkaran Muwal, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Dukiya, Post Bhanwal, Tehsil Riyan Badi, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid Mr. M. S. Shekhawat Mr. Sushil Bishnoi Mr. Shrawan Choudhary Mr. H. S. Choudhary Mr. C. P. Trivedi Mr. Sampat Prajapat Mr. Gulab Singh Naruka Mr. Tanwar Singh Mr. Ambalal Mr. S. R. Godara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (18 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 20/07/2020
1. Petitioners joining the present bunch of the writ petitions, have prayed appropriate directions to fill up the posts remaining vacant pursuant to the selection process initiated vide advertisement dated 31.07.2018.
2. The petitioners' prayers are identical, which run as under :
"It is, therefore, most humble prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with cost and by and appropriate writ, order or direction :-
A. By an appropriate writ order or direction, any order denying to operate the fresh reserve list or any reshuffled result against the non-joined candidates or available vacant posts of Teacher Grade - III (Level-II) Hindi for Non-TSP Area in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 (Annex-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside B. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to operate the fresh reshuffle result or reserve list of Teacher Grade - III (Level-II) Hindi for total available posts by exclude the names of the selected candidates in the earlier reshuffled result, those who joined as Teacher Grade - III (Level-II) in another respective subjects as selected for the post of Teacher Grade- III (Level-II) for Non-TSP Area in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018.
C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioners in the selection process and provide the appointment as per their marks against the available vacant posts as not filled-up by ineligible and non-joined candidates for the post of Teacher Grade - III (Level-II) Hindi for Non-TSP Area in pursuance of the advertisement dated 31.07.2018 with all consequential benefits.
D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners, (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (19 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] E. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs."
3. Without burdening the judgment by taking facts from each case, the facts which are common and necessary are narrated hereunder :
3.1 An advertisement dated 31.07.2018 came to be issued by the respondents for filling up the following subjectwise posts of Teacher Grade-III :
Non-TSP-2018 Teacher Grade-III, Level-II S.No. Subject Total Post 1 English 9278 2 Hindi 4762 3 Science & Maths 5728 4 Social 2700 Studies(SSt) 5 Sanskrit 614 6 Sindhi 55 7 Urdu 122 3.2 The vacancies were required to be filled in accordance with Rule 266 of Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1996'). Accordingly, it was stipulated in the advertisement that the selection would be made on the basis of marks obtained in REET/RTET examination and Graduation, however, giving 70% and 30% weightage (respectively to the marks obtained in REET/RTET and Graduation).
3.3 Based on the above criteria, the result was preapred by the respondents on 03.09.2018 and first subject-wise provisional select list was issued and category-wise candidates equal to the posts advertised were invited for documents verification.(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)
(20 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] 3.4 During the documents verification, certain candidates were found ineligible, whereas some of them did not turn up at all.
3.5 Another list (hereinafter referred to as the 'second list') was issued on 21.12.2018 indicating therein that it had been issued after excluding those candidates, who did not turn up for documents verification.
3.6 Thereafter a number of lists came to be issued by the respondents between 21.02.2019 and 28.02.2019 (hereinafter referred to as the 'third list'(s), wherein new/reshuffled result was published. This time list was prepared after excluding the candidates, who did not appear for document verification; those whose credential were not in order and also those candidates who did not join within the time allowed.
3.7 After issuance of the third list(s) on 28.02.2019, the respondents stopped the further process, inspite of the fact that many posts were still lying unfilled. The respondents did not even consider that many of the candidates even from the third list(s) (dated 21.02.2019 to 28.02.2019) did not join.
4. The petitioners have approached this Court inter alia contending that the respondents have included names of those candidates in second list, who did not turn up and who have been selected for other subjects and gave their joining. During the pendency of the petitions 'third list' dated 28.02.2019 have been published. After publication of the select list on 28.02.2019 petitioners have raised a grievance that various posts remained vacant, as many of the candidates did not turn up for joining and also because many of the selected candidates have already joined in different subjects, thus they were not inclined to join.(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)
(21 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
5. It is contended by the petitioners that even in the list dated 28.02.2019, the respondents have reflected names of many candidates in the waiting list, whose names were already shown in the select list in different subjects and who have already given their joining in their subject of choice.
6. On 22.01.2020, while noticing the contention of the rival parties, this Court had drawn the following order-sheet :
"The respondents - State is directed to place on record the present position of categorywise vacant seats for each subject of Teacher Grade-III (Level- II) out of the seats notified vide advertisement dated 31.07.2018.In case, name(s) of any candidate(s) is/are reflected in more than one subject, the State will rationalise the same and remove his/her name, in case he/she has joined in any other subject.The aforesaid position will be given after removal/striking off the names of such candidates.
List these matters on 12.02.2020."
7. An additional affidavit dated 02.03.2020 has been filed by the respondents in furtherance of the above directions issued by this Court and subject-wise vacant position of seats or the seats which remained unfilled, after publication of the provisional select list on 28.02.2019 has been given. The said detail is reproduced hereunder :
dk;kZy; funs"kd izkjfEHkd f"k{kk ,oa ia-jkt-¼izkf"k½ jktLFkku chdkusj jktLFkku izkFkfed vkSj mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ 2018 vUrxZr v/;kid ysoy f}rh; lkekU; f"k{kk ds fofHkUu inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ gsrq tkjh inokj@fo'k;okj foKkiu rFkk p;fur] fu;qDr ,oa fjDr inksa dk fooj.k %& foKkiu la[;k ,oa fo'k; fooj.k lkekU; vkschlh ,echlh ,llh ,lVh lgfj;k ;ksx fnukad 01@2018 xSj vuqlwfpr p;fur esa fnukad {ks= ysoy 165 155 6 97 83 0 506 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 f}rh; vaxzsth 02@2018 vuqlwfpr {ks= p;fur esa fnukad ysoy f}rh; 43 0 0 3 13 0 59 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 vaxzsth (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (22 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] 03@2018 xSj vuqlwfpr p;fur esa fnukad {ks= ysoy 106 86 5 24 47 0 268 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 f}rh; fgUnh 04@2018 vuqlwfpr {ks= p;fur esa fnukad ysoy f}rh; 24 0 0 1 25 0 50 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 fgUnh xSj vuqlwfpr 05@2018 {ks= ysoy p;fur esa fnukad 60 32 0 9 15 0 116 f}rh; foKku ls fjDr 31-07-2018 xf.kr 06@2018 vuqlwfpr {ks= p;fur esa fnukad ysoy f}rh; 93 0 0 6 20 0 119 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 foKku xf.kr xSj vuqlwfpr 07@2018 {ks= ysoy p;fur esa fnukad f}rh; 358 287 10 168 139 0 962 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 lkekftd v/;;u vuqlwfpr {ks= 08@2018 ysoy f}rh; p;fur esa fnukad 69 0 0 8 67 0 144 lkekftd ls fjDr 31-07-2018 v/;;u 09@2018 xSj vuqlwfpr p;fur esa fnukad {ks= ysoy 248 101 0 70 53 0 472 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 f}rh; laLd`r 10@2018 vuqlwfpr {ks= p;fur esa fnukad ysoy f}rh; 74 0 0 7 54 0 135 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 laLd`r 11@2018 xSj vuqlwfpr p;fur esa fnukad {ks= ysoy 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 f}rh; fla/kh 12@2018 xSj vuqlwfpr p;fur esa fnukad {ks= ysoy 3 1 0 0 2 0 6 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 f}rh; mnwZ 13@2018 vuqlwfpr {ks= p;fur esa fnukad ysoy f}rh; 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 ls fjDr 31-07-2018 mnwZ ysoy f}rh; lkekU; f"k{kk p;fur esa 1246 662 21 393 518 0 2840 dqy ;ksx ls fjDr
8. Having considered the vacancy position as reflected in the affidavit above referred and the submissions made by rival counsel, the following order was passed on 03.03.2020 :
"1. The affidavit filed by the respondent - State, clearly shows that as of today many seats out of the advertised vacancies are lying unfilled; to mention a few : - 506 posts are lying unfilled in non-TSP area Level-II (Subject English); 59 posts are in TSP area in Level-II (Subject English); 50 posts in TSP area Level-II (Subject Hindi). There are many other seats which have remained unfilled.(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)
(23 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
2. Mr. Vyas, learned Additional Advocate General, responding to petitioners' contentions that all these vacant posts are required to be filled, as no fresh vacancies have been advertised, submits that reserve list has been operated and now new exercise cannot be done. Said stand of learned Additional Advocate General seems to be in light of para No.5 of the reply. Heavy reliance has been made on the decision dated 25.02.2019, taken in a meeting under the aegis of Principal Secretary, School Education and Language, filed as Annexure-1 with the reply.
3. Upon considering the submission of Mr. Vyas an impression can be gathered that the respondents have taken the decision not to fill up the vacant posts, being wary of future complications that already selected/appointed candidates may claim their rights of appropriate posting. Mr. Vyas apprehends that if further appointments are given, candidates having less marks and lower in the merit will be given appointment/posting in the Districts, for which the selected candidates had given option, but could not be accommodated as per their prevailing merit positions.
4. In prima facie opinion of this Court, such stand of the learned AAG and taken in the reply is contrary to the minutes of meeting dated 25.02.2019.
5. A careful reading of the minutes aforesaid on the contrary suggests otherwise. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant extract of the resolution adopted by the Committee in its meeting dated 25.02.2019 :
"A. dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ds dkj.k fjDr jgs inksa dks izrh{kk lwph ls Hkjk tkuk mfpr gS] ftlds fuEu dkj.k gS& p;u fj"kQy djus dh izfØ;k eq[; p;u lwph esa ls vik=@ vuqifLFkr jgs vH;fFkZ;ksa ds LFkku ij dh tkrh gS D;ksafd vik=@ vuqifLFkfr ds dkj.k eq[; p;u lwph viw.kZ jgrh gSA tc ,d ckj vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr vkns"k tkjh dj fn;k tkrk gS rks mldk uke eq[; p;u lwph esa jgrk gS o eq[; p;u lwph esa uke o esfjV jgus ds dkj.k dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus ls fjDr jgs inksa dks p;u fj"kQy dj ugha Hkjk tk ldrk gS rFkk izrh{kk lwph ls in dks Hkjk tk ldrk gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;@mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Hkh tVk"kadj ds ekeys esa ;gh fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj us ,lch flfoy fjV la[;k 14505@2018 Hkw'k.k dqekj i.M~;k o vU; cuke jkT; ljdkj o vU; esa fnukad 25-10-2018 dks fu.kZ; ikfjr dj iapk;rh jkt fu;e 1996 ds fu;e 277¼v½ ds mica/k 6 ds vuqlj.k esa fjtoZ fyLV dks osclkbZV ij izdkf"kr djus ,oa lacaf/kr ftyk ifj'knksa dks fjfDr;ksa ,oa fjtoZ fyLV (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (24 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] ds laca/k esa iapk;rh jkt fu;e ds izko/kku vuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus ds funsZ"k fn;s gSA B. mDrkuqlkj izrh{kk lwph ls fjDr inksa dks Hkjus gsrq fuEukuqlkj izfØ;k viuk;h tk;sxh& izkf/kd`r vfHkdj.k }kjk lHkh ftyk ifj'knksa ls dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ls fjDr jgs inksa dh oxZokj lwpuk izkIr dj izrh{kk lwph tkjh djus gsrq fjfDr;ksa dk oxZokj fu/kkZj.k fd;k tkosxkA eq[; p;u lwph ds dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa ds dkj.k fjDr jgs inksa ds fo:) ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] tks/kiqj esa ,lch flfoy fjV la[;k 14505@2018 Hkw'k.k dqekj i.M~;k o vU; cuke jkT;
ljdkj o vU; esa fnukad 25-10-2018 dks ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa iapk;rh jkt fu;e 1996 ds fu;e 277¼v½ ds mica/k 6 ds vuqlj.k esa fjtoZ fyLV rS;kj dj izrh{kk lwph dks osclkbZV ij izdkf"kr fd;k tk;sxkA izrh{kk lwph esa p;u dh ogha izfØ;k viukbZ tk;sxh tks eq[; p;u lwph rS;kj djrs le; viuk;h tkrh gS vFkkZr lcls igys vksiu dSVsxjh ds inksa dks Hkjk tk;sxk o vksiu dSVsxjh dh lwph esa lHkh oxksZa ds vH;fFkZ;ksas dks muds vadksa ds vuqlkj dalhMj fd;k tk;sxkA vksiu dSVsxjh ds inksa dks Hkjs tkus ds ckn vkjf{kr oxZ ¼vkschlh] ,echlh] ,llh] ,lVh o lgfj;k½ ds ftl dSVsxjh esa ftrus in fjDr gS lacaf/kr dSVsxjh dh "ks'k lwph esa ls vkj{k.k izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u fd;k tk;sxkA izrh{kk lwph es p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks esfjV uEcj eq[; p;u lwph ds vfUre esfjV Øekad ds ckn ls Øekuqlkj vkoafVr fd;k tk;sxkA izrh{kk lwph ds p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ftyksa esa izoxZ vuqlkj fjfDr;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ftyk vkoafVr fd;s tkus ij dkmalfyax ds }kjk inLFkkiu fd;k tk;sxkA mDrkuqlkj dk;Zokgh djus gsrq funs"kd] izkjfEHkd f"k{kk ,oa iapk;rh jkt ¼izkf"k½ jktLFkku] chdkusj dks funsZf"kr fd;k x;kA vUr esa ehfVax l/kU;okn lekIr gqbZA lgh@& 'kklu mi lfpo izkf"k ,oa iajkt ¼izkf"k½"
6. According to the record available last (Third) reshuffled list was issued on 21.12.2018. There is nothing on record to evince that any attempt was made to reshuffle the list or operate the reserve list after 25.02.2019.
7. If the affidavit dated 02.03.2020 filed by the respondents, pursuant to the order dated 22.01.2020, showing the unfilled posts out of the posts advertised, is taken into consideration, in light of the minutes of meeting dated 25.02.2019, this Court feels that what has been submitted by learned Additional Advocate General is not in conformity with the State's viewpoint in relation to the posts lying unfilled and reshuffling or operating the reserve list.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(25 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
8. That apart, about 1000 posts are admittedly lying unfilled. On the one hand, unemployed youth are waiting for employment and on the other hand various schools run by the State Government are starving for teachers - the ultimate sufferer are, young children whose rights of education are being impaired if not infringed.
9. This Court deems it appropriate to first acquaint with the stand of the appointing authority i.e. Panchayati Raj Department, as to whether they intend to give appointment on the unfilled posts or not.
10. Let an affidavit of some responsible Officer (not below the rank of Joint Secretary) of Panchayati Raj Department be filed indicating as to whether the Panchayati Raj Department intends to fill up the posts lying unfilled. If the answer is negative, the affidavit shall contain brief reasons for such stand.
11. List these matters on 18.03.2020."
9. An additional affidavit has now been filed by the respondents on 08.07.2020, in pursuance of the above referred order dated 03.03.2020, indicating therein that the State has taken an in-principle decision not to fill-up the remaining posts in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of Joint Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department on 23.06.2020. It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant extract of the minutes of the meeting dated 23.06.2020, particularly paras No.1 & 2 thereof :
jktLFkku ljdkj izkjfEHkd f"k{kk ¼fof/k&izdks'B½ foHkkx cSBd fnukad 23-06-2020 dk dk;Zokgh fooj.k jktLFkku izkFkfed vkSj mPp izkFkfed fo|ky; v/;kid lh/kh HkrhZ] 2018 esa p;u fj"kQy rFkk izrh{kk lwph tkjh djus ds ckn fjDr jgs inksa ij fu;qfDr;ka fn;s tkus@ugha fn;s tkus ds laca/k esa fopkj foe"kZ mijkUr fuEu fu.kZ; fy;s x;s %& 1- r`rh; Js.kh f"k{kd HkrhZ 2018 esa eq[; p;u lwph esa ls nLrkosst lR;kiu esa vuqifLFkr] vik= ,oa dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus ds dkj.k fjDr jgs inksa ds laca/k esa fnukad 17-01-2019 dks cSBd vk;ksftr dj ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k Fkk fd nLrkost lR;kiu esa vuqifLFkr ,oa vik= (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (26 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] vH;fFkZ;ksa ds dkj.k fjDr jgs inkas dks p;u fj"kQy ls rFkk dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus ds dkj.k fjDr jgs inksa dks izrh{kk lwph ls Hkjk tkuk gSA cSBd fnukad 17-01-2019 esa fy;s x;s fu.kZ; ds vuqlj.k esa foHkkx }kjk r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid ysoy f}rh; ¼lkekU; f"k{kk½ ds inksa ds laca/k esa fnukad 28-02-2019 dks p;u fj"kQy fd;k x;k gS rFkk fnukad 28-02- 2019 dks gh dk;Zxzg.k ugha djus ds dkj.k fjDr jgs inksa ds laca/k esa izrh{kk lwph tkjh dh xbZ gSA p;u fj"kQy ds ifj.kkeLo:i dqy 3532 vH;fFkZ;ksa dk uop;u fd;k x;k gSA blh rjg izrh{kk lwph esa dqy 2149 vH;fFkZ;ksa dk uop;u fd;k x;k gSA p;u fj"kQy ,oa izrh{kk lwph esa ls fu;qfDr fn;s tkus ds i"pkr dqy 2840 in fofHkUu dkj.kksa ls fjDr jgs gSA jktLFkku iapk;rh jkt fu;e] 1996 ds fu;e 277d ds fcUnq la[;k VI ds rgr ewy lwph vxzsf'kr fd;s tkus dh frfFk ls N% ekg ds Hkhrj vkjf{kr lwph esa ls fu;qfDr iznRr dh tk ldrh gSA foHkkx }kjk izrh{kk lwph tkjh dj izrh{kk lwph esa ls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr iznku dh tk pqdh gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa vc o'kZ 2018 dh HkrhZ ds laca/k esa dk;Zokgh iw.kZ gks pqdh gSA 2- ctV o'kZ 2020&21 dh ?kks'k.kk la[;k 201 esa f"k{kk foHkkx esa 41000 inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ dh ?kks'k.kk dh xbZ gSA buesa ls r`rh; Js.kh v/;kidksa ds 31000 inksa ij HkrhZ dh tk;sxhA f"k{kk foHkkx esa r`rh; Js.kh v/;kidksa ds orZeku esa fjDr inksa ij HkrhZ fd;s tkus ds dkj.k f"k{kd HkrhZ 2018 ds "ks'k fjDr inksa dks uohu HkrhZ esa "kkfey fd;k x;k gSA uohu HkrhZ o'kZ 2020&21 esa dh tkuk izfØ;k/khu gSA vr% mDr fLFkfr n"kkZrs gq;s ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k "kiFk i= izLrqr fd;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA cSBd l/kU;okn lekIr gqbZA *emphasis supplied
10. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that indisputably 2331 posts for Non-TSP area and 509 posts in TSP area - total 2840 posts, as mentioned in the minutes of above referred meeting and affidavit dated 03.03.2020 have remained unfilled.
11. It was argued by the petitioners that the respondents have proceeded erroneously inasmuch as while issuing first provisional select list, they had called all the candidates (as per their merit) for documents verification and then, the provisional select list was issued after excluding the candidates whose documents were not found in order and/or the candidates, who did not turn up for document verification.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(27 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
12. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the respondents ought to have first verified the documents and thereafter issued list of suitable candidates, which is the mandate of Rule 277A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996.
13. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, Rule 277A of the Rules of 1996 required the publication of list of suitable candidates and not meritorious candidates. He emphasised that until and unless the documents and other credentials have been verified, it cannot be said that the persons mentioned in the list are suitable for appointment.
14. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, if the respondents wished to proceed strictly in accordance with the Rules and law, they were supposed to issue select list of only those candidates, whose credentials/documents were found in order.
15. He argued that at least five months' time has lapsed in issuing purported first select list and the third select list and reserve list, for no fault of the petitioners. He was at pains to point out that after issuing the select list dated 28.02.2019, the respondents have treated their job/responsibility to be over and have brought an end to the selection process, for no justifiable reason.
16. It was also submitted that the rules require issuance of waiting list, which should be issued along with the publication of select list of all the posts advertised. It was contended that the waiting list, which has been issued by the respondents along with first list, cannot be said to be a waiting list and the same (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (28 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] cannot be legally issued unless the final select list has been issued.
17. It was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioners that as per the mandate of the rules, the respondents were required to issue the list of selected candidates qua the total posts advertised with respect to each of the subjects, while also issuing subject-wise categorywise reserve list of candidates.
18. According to the learned counsel, the respondents were required to call the persons from the reserve list and in case the reserve list of 50% of candidates was exhausted and still posts remained unfilled, they were required to call for the list of further candidates from the subsequent merit list.
19. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in a case like the present one, where large number of posts have been advertised for different subjects, it is a usual phenomenon that number of candidates apply for more than one subjects, while giving their subject choice. Many candidates get selected in more than one subject.
20. It was shown from the record that number of candidates did not join, though their names were reflected in select lists of more than one subject. In this regard, Court's attention was invited towards page No.19 of SB Civil Writ Petition No.2247/2019 to satisfy that names of the candidates mentioned in the memo of writ petition have been reflected in the subsequent list issued by the respondents, though they had already given their joining for different subject(s).
21. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that admittedly 2840 posts have remained unfilled and thousands of candidates, who have appeared in the selection process in question are (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (29 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] waiting in queue in the hope of appointment, but the respondents have stopped the process without any reason.
22. It was argued that the posts are still lying unfilled and neither any conscious decision was taken to not to fill the remaining posts out of the posts, which were advertised by the respondents nor has any subsequent process for recruitment initiated.
23. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the judgment dated 09.01.2020 in the case of Mohd. Aslam Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.11505/2019.
24. Mr. Kailash Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondents at the outset submitted that proper facts could not be brought to the notice of this Court on 03.03.2020, for which the Court had only considered para No.3.2 of the minutes of the meeting dated 25.02.2019 and recorded that the reply of the respondents was contrary to the minutes of the meeting.
25. He invited Court's attention towards Para No.3.1 of the minutes of the meeting and submitted that the respondents have decided not to fill up the remaining posts, which is clear from the minutes which indicate that the exercise of reshuffling and including new names would be undertaken once only.
26. In response to Court's concern that what was the reason and justification behind the decision to undertake reshuffling exercise only once, it was argued that if this exercise were to be undertaken again and again, the post(s)/place of posting which remained unfilled on account of non-joining of the selected candidates would naturally be available to be offered to those newly included candidates, who though were standing lower in (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (30 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] merit, would be given such posting, whereas the same was earlier refused or was not available, when persons higher in merit opted for such place.
27. Learned counsel for the respondents, vehemently argued that the petitioners have failed to show any vested right, which is a sina-qua non for claiming a mandamus. Another submission was forcefully made that petitioners cannot claim any right to be appointed.
28. In support of the contentions aforesaid, learned counsel cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur Vs. The Governing Body of the Nalanda College reported in SCR [1962] 144; State of Haryana Vs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors reported in (1974) 3 SCC 220; Shankarsan Dash Vs. UOI reported (1991) 3 SCC 47; Batiarani Gramiya Bank Vs. Pallab Kumar & Ors reported in (2004) 9 SCC 100; Subha B. Nair & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Ors reported in (2008) 7 SCC 210; Manoj Manu & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors reported in (2013) 12 SCC 171; and Kulwinder Pal Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors reported in (2016) 6 SCC 532.
29. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Shiv Kumar Vyas Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors : SB Civil Writ Petition No.2116/2013, decided on 14.05.2013 and submitted that in almost identical circumstances, in the recruitment process of 2012 of the same Department, this Court has issued directions to the respondents to fill the unfilled posts and operate the reserve list.
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(31 of 36) [CW-2094/2019]
30. It was argued by Mr. Jangid that a perusal of the minutes of the meeting dated 23.06.2020 filed along with the additional affidavit dated 08.07.2020, particularly para No.2 shows otherwise - these posts have been kept alive and included in the total 41,000 posts, which have been projected rather propagated by the State Government to be filled in the Budget Year 2020-2021.
31. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the respondents have failed to proceed in accordance with the rules. They have also failed to observe reasonableness and diligence required of them.
32. It may be true, that after issuance of reshuffled list, when the new incumbent were called for document verification, those candidates, who have already joined, were not invited, but nevertheless their names have been shown in the reserve list published on 28.02.2019.
33. It is to be noticed that on 28.02.2019, when the select list and reserve/waiting list were issued, respondents in their meeting dated 25.02.2019 had not taken any decision as to whether the reserve list would be operated or not. After issuance of select list and reserve list on 28.02.2019, the respondents just went in hibernation.
34. After the direction dated 03.03.2020, the State Government in its meeting dated 23.06.2020 has purportedly decided to not to fill the remaining seats by simply observing that it would not be conducive to carry on the process, as it would give rise to contentious issues and heart burning to the (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (32 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] already selected candidates about place of posting, as noticed in Para No.3.1 of the minutes of the meeting.
35. In considered opinion of the Court, the decision taken in the meeting dated 23.06.2020 is not in conformity with the rules on the one hand and it is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on the other.
36. The first judgment of Mr. Chaudhary, learned counsel for the respondents, in case of Dr. Rai Shivendra Bahadur (supra) is distinguishable on facts in as much as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the petitioner has to show his persisting or vested right to seek Mandamus. In the present case, the petitioners whose names have been mentioned in waiting list/reserve list definitely have a right to be considered for appointment, particularly when the posts remained unfilled.
37. The remaining judgments cited by Mr. Chaudhary are to the effect that it is the discretion of the State Government to fill or not to fill the unfilled posts. So far as the proposition laid down in the judgments cited by Mr. Chaudhary are concerned, there cannot be any quarrel, but then, in the present case the State has failed to demonstrate that there was any conscious decision on the part of the State, not to fill the remaining unfilled 2840 posts of different subjects. So called decision taken in the meeting dated 23.06.2020 is also nothing short of excuse to cover up their inaction of not operating the waiting list.
38. Admittedly third list was issued on 28.02.2019 and on the same day reserve list was issued. No justification worth the name has been given for not calling the candidates from the reserve list, though 2840 posts remained vacant. The decision now taken in the meeting dated 23.06.2020 is firstly arbitrary (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (33 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] and contrary to mandate of rules and cannot be accepted as a conscious and valid decision of the State to not to fill up the seats which remained unfilled.
39. On the contrary, the facts are revealing. The State on the contrary has merged these posts in the total vacant posts, to be filled in future, as is evident from the minutes of meeting dated 23.06.2020.
40. Given the fact that a large number of seats were lying vacant, the respondents were not justified in taking the decision that they would not proceed in furtherance of the recruitment and not call for the candidates from the reserve list on the pretext of administrative difficulties.
41. Admittedly, no process for recruitment has so far been taken up, much less issuance of advertisement. Hence, there is no impediment in operating the waiting list.
42. The respondents have abruptly aborted the selection process without any reasonable basis.
43. In the opinion of the Court, being wary of the procedural hurdle or apprehending difficulty in implementation, so also under the apprehension of dispute in relation to place of posting by the candidates already selected, cannot be a reason to deprive the candidates from the waiting list of their fundamental right of consideration/appointment on the basis of their merit for the vacant seats.
44. It will not be out of context to take a look at the relevant Rule namely 277A. Relevant part thereof viz Clause (vi) & (vii) is being reproduced hereunder :
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)(34 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] "(vi) the Authorized Agency shall prepare category wise select list of the candidates declared successful on the basis of criteria of selection laid down by the State Government from time to time:
Provided that the Authorized Agency may, to the extent of fifty percent of the finally intimated vacancies, keep names of suitable candidates on the reserve list. The Authorized Agency may on requisition recommend the name of such candidate in the order of merit to the Zila Parishad concerned, within six month from the date on which original list was forwarded by the Authorized Agency;
(vii) the Authorized Agency shall prepare district wise list of the selected candidates, out of list prepared under clause (vi), according to the preference given by them in the application form; and
(viii) the Authorized Agency shall send the list of selected candidates prepared under clause (vii) to the Zila Parishad concerned, with their application forms, for appointment."
45. A purposive reading of clause (vi) of Rule 277A of the Rules of 1996 clearly suggest that the authorised agency is supposed to prepare select list of the candidates declared successful on the basis of criterion of selection. A perusal of proviso to clause (vi) and clause (vii) shows that the authorised agency is supposed to keep names of suitable candidates to the extent of 50% of the finally intimated vacancies on the reserve list. A purposive reading of Rule 277A of the Rules of 1996 clearly suggests that the authorised agency is required to send select list of successful candidates. In the facts of the present case, when no written examination or interview were held and the criteria for selection is only based on the weightage (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (35 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] percentage of marks in RTET/REET and Graduation, the first list dated 03.09.2018 was simply a merit list showing the top candidates from each of the category - subject-wise. The list of 28.02.2019 (the third list) is not a select list in strict sense, as it did not contain names of equal number of candidates to the posts that were notified to be filled through the subject advertisement. As a matter of fact the so called reserve list cannot be said to be a reserve list, as the process of selection was not over.
46. Unless the State, by a conscious and informed decision, decides to abolish the posts and reduces the 'finally intimated vacancy' the process of selection cannot be aborted. The decision of the State Government taken in the meeting dated 23.06.2020, cannot be taken to be a decision to reduce the 'intimated vacancy'.
47. The embargo of operating the waiting list beyond six months doses not apply in the present case, for the reasons stated hereinabove. That apart, petitioners have approached the Court, even prior to issuance of the select list and reserve list dated 28.02.2019.
48. That apart, upon perusal of the additional affidavit dated 08.07.2020, this Court clearly finds that the seats are still lying vacant and the respondents have included them in the posts to be filled in Budget Year 2020-2021.
49. Admittedly, 2840 posts are lying vacant, pursuant to the advertisement dated 31.07.2018. The petitioners and other candidates who have taken part in the process, are awaiting fingers crossed in a hope and trust that remaining seats will be filled and at least 2840 of those in the waiting list will be (Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM) (36 of 36) [CW-2094/2019] accommodated. These candidates who could legitimately be appointed will have to wait for the next advertisement (which has not been issued for last 2 years) and by that time many of them would be over aged on the one hand and on the other hand, will have to compete with the fresh candidates who have become eligible after the last advertisement - the candidate who are in waiting list will have to wait till eternity.
50. The irony is that on the one hand thousands of youths are waiting for employment and on the other, the schools in which the posts are lying vacant, are struggling to impart education.
The ultimate sufferer are children - the future of this nation.
Impugned action of the respondents have not only impaired the future of the present generation but has also retarded if not ruined the future of next generation.
51. As an upshot of discussions aforesaid, these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to fill the remaining post of each subject, while operating categorywise reserve list.
It will be required of the respondents to ignore those candidates, who have already joined, pursuant to the advertisement in question and those who have not turned up either for documents verification or for joining.
52. Stay applications are also disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 57-A.Arora/-
(Downloaded on 22/07/2020 at 08:23:24 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)