Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dala Ram Bhati vs The State Of Rajasthan on 12 January, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Rekha Borana
(1 of 4) [SAW-128/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 128/2021
1. Dala Ram Bhati S/o Shri Java Ram Bhati, Aged About 33
Years, By Caste Meghwal, R/o Village Post Sekhala, Tehsil
Balesar, District Jodhpur At Present R/o 374, Unton Ki
Ghati, Near Paani Ki Tanki, Soorsagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. Anita Parihar D/o Mohan Lal, Aged About 29 Years, B/c
Sain, R/o Roshni Bhadu Street, Ward No. 8, Hanuman
Nagar, 5E Chhoti, Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
3. Nirmal Singh S/o Shri Kishan Singh, Aged About 37
Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Bhutton Ka Chowraha, Behind Maa
Suraj Complex, Purani Ginani, Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. Jitendra Singh Rathore S/o Shri Prem Singh Rathore,
Aged About 36 Years, B/c Rajput, R/o Thelasar House,
Jaipur Road, In Front Of Sofia School, Tilak Nagar,
Bikaner ,rajasthan.
5. Maga Ram Kumhar S/o Shri Durga Ram Kumhar, Aged
About 29 Years, B/c Kumhar, R/o Village Post Dehtara,
Tehsil Kolayat, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Rural Development And Panchayati Raj,
Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Project Director (LPs And SHGs) Cum Deputy
Secretary, Department Of Rural Development And
Panchayati Raj, Secretariat, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. State Mission Director, Rajasthan Gramin Ajeevika Vikas
Parishad (RGAVP) , 3Rd Floor, Udhyog Bhawan, Tilak
Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manish Patel
through V.C.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG
through V.C.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
(Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 08:49:55 PM)
(2 of 4) [SAW-128/2021]
Judgment
12/01/2022
This appeal arises out of impugned judgment dated
08.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge. The State Government had initiated steps for engaging Project Managers and Cluster Level Managers on contractual basis for a fixed term, which could be extended. After selection process was completed, offers of appointment were also issued to the selected candidates including the petitioner. However, before the candidates could report for duty and assume charge, the entire selection process was cancelled. This prompted the petitioner to challenge the action of the authorities. The learned Single Judge noticed that on enormous complaints, the Additional Secretary had set up enquiry and called for reports. The reports dated 12.09.2019 and 11.11.2019 do not indicate any major infirmity in the selection process. However, the Additional Chief Secretary made his note on 22.11.2019, in which he noticed several loopholes and infirmities in the selection process, such as some of the candidates had not written the roll numbers at correct places in the OMR sheets, some of the OMR sheets were not assessed because the sheets were not properly protected by the invigilators and results of these candidates were not declared. There was a difference in the time of examination as per the entrance card and as published in the question paper which would have a possibility of some of the candidates not being able to complete the answers and such other defects. Based on these notes, he decided to cancel the entire selection process.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 08:49:55 PM)
(3 of 4) [SAW-128/2021] The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that such selection could be cancelled if it is shown to be defective or suffering from major infirmity. Resultantly, the present writ petition and other connected writ petitions were dismissed. In the process, the learned Single Judge also referred to the decisions of Supreme Court in the cases of Ajay Hasia and others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others [(1981) 1 SCC 722] and Bishnu Biswas and others Vs. Union of India and others [(2014) 5 SCC 774] and observed that as per the said decisions, the allocation of marks for oral interviews should not exceed 15% whereas in the present case 80 marks were for written test and 20 marks were for oral interviews. Hence, the selection process was vitiated.
We are in agreement with the final decision of the learned Single Judge. The record would suggest that the Additional Secretary had noticed several defects which could distort the selection process and ultimate result of the examination conducted. The learned Single Judge noticed that the selection had to be made on the basis of written test, oral interview and group discussion, whereas there was no evidence of group discussions being conducted.
Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere. Since the learned Single Judge has not upheld the decision of the Government to recall the selections only on the ground that more than 15% marks have been allotted for oral interviews, our dismissal of this appeal should not be seen as confirmation of the view of the learned Single Judge on this count.
(Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 08:49:55 PM)
(4 of 4) [SAW-128/2021] With these observations, the appeal is dismissed.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
31-jayesh/-
(Downloaded on 13/01/2022 at 08:49:55 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)