Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
State Of Rajasthan vs Suresh Kumar Jat on 22 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 357/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Suresh Kumar Jat S/o Ram Nath Jat, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Dhani Jhilwali, 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.
10. Deepika D/o Mahendra Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village And Post Ghardana Khurd, Tehsil Buhana, District
Jhunjhunu.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
(2 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]
Connected With
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 235/2021
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.
----Appellants
Versus
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, R/o Village Khartwas, Post Dhana Bhakaran,
Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu, Rajasthan.
3. Mukesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Bajrang Lal Jangid, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Kotra, Post Borda, Tehsil
Bonli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
4. Rishi Raj Nagar S/o Shri Ram Lal Nagar,, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village And Post Piplod, Tehsl Atru, District
Baran, Rajasthan.
5. Shreni Dan Charan S/o Shri Hukmi Dan Charan, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Tarla, Tehsil Serwa, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
6. Nitesh Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Kanawas Road, Balunda, District Pali, Rajasthan.
7. Nema Ram Solanki S/o Shri Gopa Ram, Aged About 25
Years, R/o Village And Post Doli, Tehsil Luni, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
8. Ratan La Saini S/o Shri Lallu Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/
o Mithi Kothi, Vpo Mitrapura, Tehsil Bonli, District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 306/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
(3 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
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.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 309/2021
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.
----Appellants
Versus
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
(4 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]
Sani Dan Charan S/o Dungar Ram Charan, Aged About 22 Years,
Village Bogasani, Post Nimbol, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali,
Rajasthan.
----Respondent
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 313/2021
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.
----Appellants
Versus
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.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 319/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Rakesh Kumar S/o Champa Lal Pareek, Aged About 33
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
(5 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]
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 Villlage Budhpura, Post Dariba
Project, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)
3. Nitu Meena D/o Shri Gopi Ram Meena, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Vpo Dola Ka Bas, Via Kaladera, Tehsil Chomu,
District Jodhpur.
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, Distrit
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 W/o Rajesh Baloda,
Aged About 30 Years, 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.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 324/2021
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.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Veerma Ram S/o Shri Prabhu Ram Choudhary, Aged
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
(6 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]
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 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.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 334/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department,
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
(7 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]
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.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Avadhesh Kumar Jangid S/o Shri Amara Ram Jangid, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Agewa, Tehsil Jaitaran, 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.
----Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 358/2021
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.
----Appellants
Versus
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,
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
(8 of 15) [SAW-357/2021]
Rajasthan.
3. Ram Raj Meena S/o Shri Sunder Lal Meena, Aged About
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 Kanwra, 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.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Advocate General
assisted by Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG,
Mr. Deepak Chandak, Mr. K.S. Lodha
For Respondent(s) : Mr. G.R. Punia, Sr. Adv. assisted by
Mr. Jai Naveen,
Mr. Mahaveer Bhamariya,
Mr. M.S. Godara,
Mr. Rajendra Prasad
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment 22/11/2021 All these appeals have been filed by the State Government to challenge the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in suo moto proceedings in connection with Civil Writ (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM) (9 of 15) [SAW-357/2021] Petition No.2094/2019 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar and other connected writ petitions.
Brief facts are as under:
The State Government had conducted recruitment test for selection to the post of Teacher Grade-III (Leval-II), for which the advertisement was issued on 31.07.2018. At the end of the selection process, large number of vacancies remained unfilled even after operating the reserved list. The State Government decided not to fill up the remaining vacancies. This decision of the State was challenged by the aggrieved candidates by filing the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge disposed of these writ petitions by a common judgment dated 20.07.2020 and issued following observations and directions:
"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 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, (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM) (10 of 15) [SAW-357/2021] 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."
(highlighting supplied by us) It appears that the State Government had decided to implement the said judgment without challenging it. As a consequence thereof, number of appointment orders were issued to the candidates by operating list further call it reserve list or further reserve list. At that stage, some of the candidates, namely, Rakesh Godara and others filed a fresh Petition No.2039/2021 and prayed, inter alia, for quashing the merit list drawn by the State Government on 11.01.2021, from which the appointments to the left over vacancies were being made. In response to the notice issued by the High Court, the State Government appeared and filed reply and clarified its stand with respect to drawing of fresh reserve list and the modalities applied for such purpose.
A perusal of the impugned order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge would show that in the course of hearing in the petition in the case of Rakesh Godara, the learned Single Judge formed a prima facie opinion that the said judgment dated 20.07.2020 in the case of Kuldeep Kumar and others needs to be reviewed/reconsidered. The learned Single Judge observed (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM) (11 of 15) [SAW-357/2021] that all connected petitions shall be placed before the Court for "to be mentioned".
Before the learned Single Judge in such proceedings, the opposition was made by the counsel for the parties that in absence of selected candidates, the Court should not exercise suo moto powers to review, particularly when the judgment under consideration has been implemented. This objection was overruled by the learned Single Judge on the following grounds:
"14. Learned counsel for the parties were mostly of the view that since the judgment given in the present bunch of writ petitions has been implemented, any endeavour to review or clarify the judgment would disturb the rights of the candidates, who have been selected and issued appointment orders. But, none of them could satisfy the Court that the direction contained in para-51, if read in isolation, is within the precincts of the controversy and otherwise in conformity with law." (emphases supplied is by us.) Once again in paragraph 24 of the said judgment, the question of exercising review powers without hearing the persons likely to be affected was dealt with in the following manner:
"24. So far as providing of opportunity of hearing is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, no individual notice is required, as almost all counsel, who appeared in bunch of cases led by Kuldeep Kumar's case (supra), are present and rights of none of those petitioners are being adversely affected. The consequence of the clarification may perhaps, concern the candidates who have been selected and given appointment, but then, the appointment orders have been given in furtherance of implementation of the judgment dated 20.07.2020 in case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra) and these selection/ appointment are already in question, in the writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.2039/2021 (Rakesh Godara Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.) and connected matters."(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
(12 of 15) [SAW-357/2021] In the impugned order, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that 2840 posts remained unfilled/vacant on account of the following three reasons:
(i) non-joining of candidates in whose favour appointment orders have been issued;
(ii) the candidates whose candidature has been rejected during document verification and;
(iii) the candidates who did not turn up for document verification at all.
With respect to categories other than non-joining of the selected candidate, the learned Single Judge recorded that in the judgment in the case of Kuldeep Kumar (supra), no specific directions were issued in relation to the manner in which such unfilled posts should be filled up and the observations and directions of the Court to fill up the unfilled posts "while operating the categorywise reserve list" was made for the purpose of filling up the posts which fell vacant on account of non-joining of the appointed candidates. Eventually, therefore, in the impugned order, the learned Single Judge held and observed as under:
"30. It has come to my notice that despite knowing the correct legal position, the respondents have picked one line from para 51 of the judgment under consideration and have filled all the posts in practically 'default mode'; "while operating the categorywise reserve list", completely dehors the settled legal position. Even if, the direction is an obitor; justice and expediency demands, it be obliterated or at least clarified.
31. The law is well settled that category-wise reserve list is required to be operated in the event of posts falling vacant due to non-joining of already appointed candidates. So far as other posts remaining unfilled are concerned (on account of rejection of candidature during document verification and the candidates who did not turn up at the time of document verification), the recruiting agency is required to reshuffle the result (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM) (13 of 15) [SAW-357/2021] by calling the candidates in order of merit, irrespective of their categories.
32. Be that as it may. Since the State has taken up a categoric stand that they have proceeded with the recruitment in accordance with the directions contained in Para No.51 of the judgment, 'while operating category-wise reserve list, in the opinion of this Court, this clarification is essential rather than being, imperative.
: CONCLUSION :
33. The order dated 20.07.2020 rendered in the present writ petition is hereby clarified in the manner that the stipulation "while operating category-wise reserve list" would be applicable only to the posts falling vacant on account of non-joining of the appointed candidates. Remaining posts, which have fallen vacant either on account of rejection of candidates or on account of the candidates not turning up for document verification shall be filled in accordance with law.
: DIRECTION :
34. Para No.29 above be read with judgment dated 20.07.2020 rendered in case of Kuldeep Kumar & Ors.
(SB Civil Writ Petition No.2094/2019). A copy of the present order be placed in each of the writ petitions decided on 20.07.2020 and a note be appended at the end of the order dated 20.07.2020, giving reference of the order instant, indicating that the order has been clarified. Fresh order of 20.07.2020 with the Note be uploaded while off-loading the earlier order." We have heard Mr. M.S. Singhvi, learned Advocate General for the State and Mr. G.R. Punia, Senior Advocate for the petitioner Rakesh Godara.
The petitioners Kuldeep Kumar and others in Civil Writ Petition No.2094/2019 and other petitioners in the connected petitions in which the learned Single Judge has passed the original judgment dated 20.07.2020, we are informed, are duly served.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, in our view, the learned Single Judge could not have passed the impugned order dated 25.02.2021. Though multiple issues concerning the ultimate view taken by the learned Single Judge in the recall or review order dated 25.02.2021 arise, we would be (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM) (14 of 15) [SAW-357/2021] well advised not to elaborate these issues since the petition of Rakesh Godara is pending before the learned Single Judge in which these legal issues would and need to be decided. The impugned order dated 25.02.2021, however, would have to be set aside for the simple reason that the learned Single Judge had exercised extraordinary power of suo moto review of his own order without their being any substantive proceedings instituted by any of the persons, who claimed to be aggrieved by the implementation of the order by the Government. The petitioner Rakesh Godara had challenged the select list drawn by the Government on the basis of judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20.07.2020. It is still open to the learned Single Judge to test the legality of the Government order in legal terms in such proceedings having regard to the judgment in case of Kuldeep Kumar and others. However, on the ground that the list drawn by the Government was on account of some lack of clarity in the said order dated 20.07.2020, which needed to be clarified or the directions issued needed to be reviewed, the suo moto power to recall or review without full hearing of all issues and all parties concerned, ought not to have been exercised. We have reproduced the relevant portion of the order of the learned Single Judge in order to demonstrate that this objection of necessary parties not being present before the Court was raised more than once. This objection was rejected on the ground that none of the counsel could satisfy the Court that the direction contained in para 51 of the judgment dated 20.07.2020, if read in isolation, is within the precincts of the controversy and otherwise in conformity with law. Whatever be the reasons and grounds for review or recall of the earlier order, when it was pointed out by the counsel (Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM) (15 of 15) [SAW-357/2021] appearing before the learned Single Judge that any such exercise would result in adversely affecting several persons, who by now have already been appointed, such persons or at least some of them ought to have been heard before unsettling the position arising out of the earlier judgment. Even otherwise, the question as to how the vacancies remained unfilled on account of non- joining of the selected candidates versus rejection of candidature upon document verification/non-appearance of the candidates for document verification, was not discussed in the original judgment. This issue required full consideration and could not have been decided by exercising suo moto powers of review without full participation from all persons concerned. On these grounds, we are inclined to reverse the order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. While so doing, it is further provided that whatever the issues the petitioners Rakesh Godara and others have raised in connection with the select list prepared by the State Government in furtherance of the order dated 20.07.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge, would be examined on the basis of the materials on record in their pending petition/s.
With these observations and directions, the impugned order is reversed. The appeals are disposed of. Connected applications are also disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
54-MohitTak/-
(Downloaded on 23/11/2021 at 08:59:11 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)