Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Swaroop Kumar Acharya & Ors vs State & Ors on 9 May, 2017
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7371 / 2014
1. Swaroop Kumar Acharya S/o Shri Subhash Chandra Acharya,
Aged 33 years, R/o Chokuti Mohalla, Railway Crossing, Near
Hanuman Temple, Bikaner.
2. Jitendra Nayyar S/o Shri Hari Mohan, by caste Khatri, R/o-
B/6/25, Sudarshana Nagar, Near Rajiv Gandhi Nursing
Institution, Bikaner.
3. Shyam Sunder S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar, by caste Arora, R/o-
Vaid Magga Ram Colony, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Director Local Self
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Municipal Commissioner, Bikaner.
3. Chairman Municipal Council, Bikaner.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8339 / 2014
1. Rakesh Bohra son of Shri Braj Lal Ji Bohra aged about 29
years, Resident of Near Dudi Petrol Pump, Jawahar Nagar,
Bikaner.
2. Sanjay Dharu son of Shri Babu Lal Ji aged about 36 years,
Resident of Behind Zila Parishad, Bapu Colony, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Municipal Council Bikaner through Executive Officer, Bikaner.
3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 258 / 2015
1. Jethu Singh son of Shri Chhagan Singh, aged about 31
years, Resident of Indra Colony, Behind Roadways Depot,
Bikaner.
(2 of 5)
[ CW-7371/2014]
2. Bheem Sen Kaushik son of Shri Shiv Kumar, aged about 40
years, Resident of Subhashpura, Near Shiv Mandir, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Municipal Council Bikaner through Executive Officer, Bikaner.
3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bikaner.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 259 / 2015
1. Smt. Santosh Devi Lohiya wife of Shri Omprakash Lohiya,
aged about 36 years, Resident of Outside Nathusar Gate,
Valmikki Basti, Bikaner.
2. Durvala Narayan Arya son of Shri Ravindra Kishore Arya,
aged about 23 years, Resident of Outside Nathusar Gate,
Valmikki Basti, Bikaner.
3. Karni Singh Barasa son of Late Shri Sukh Ram Barasa, aged
about 37 years, Resident of Outside Nathusar Gate, Valmikki
Basti, Bikaner.
4. Rajkumar son of Shri Jagdish Prasad, aged about 31 years,
Resident of Outside Nathusar Gate, Valmikki Basti, Bikaner.
5. Sanjay Kumar Barasa son of Shri Poonam Chand Barasa,
aged about 29 years, Resident of Outside Nathusar Gate,
Valmikki Basti, Bikaner.
6. Gulab Chand son of Shri Meghraj, aged about 26 years,
Resident of Valmikki Basti, Shivadi, Bikaner.
7. Ganesh Chawariya son of Shri Nathu Ram Chawariya, aged
about 30 years, Resident of Bandron Ka Bas, Valmikki Basti,
Goga Gate, Bikaner.
8. Devendra Teji son of Shri Asu Ram Teji, aged about 34 years,
Resident of Opposite Kuchilpura Mahila Mandal, Bikaner.
9. Naresh Teji son of Shri Asu Ram Teji, aged about 36 years,
Resident of Opposite Kuchilpura Mahila Mandal, Bikaner.
10. Santosh Devi wife of Shri Dalchand Ji, aged about 32 years,
Resident of opposite Kuchilpura Mahila Mandal, Bikaner.
11. Vishwanath son of Shri Bhanwar Lal, aged about 36 years,
Resident of Chand Basti, Ward No.44, Bikaner.
12. Harish Kumar Son of Shri Durga Das Ojha, aged about 27
years, resident of Baraha Guwad Chowk, Bikaner.
(3 of 5)
[ CW-7371/2014]
13. Sukhdev Ojha son of Shri Ashok Kumar Ojha, aged about 27
years, Resident of Baraha Guwad Chowk, Bikaner.
14. Anju Devi wife of Shri Raju Ram, aged about 37 years,
Resident of Valmikki Basti, Bheenasar, Bikaner.
15. Bhawani Shankar son of Shri Shankar Lal Rawat, aged about
35 years, Resident of Behind Nagarnigam Office, Rawaton ka
Mohalla, Bikaner.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Local Self
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Municipal Council Bikaner through Executive Officer, Bikaner.
3. Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Bikaner.
----Respondents
_____________________________________________________
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vineet R. Dave for Mr. Rajesh Joshi,
senior counsel, Mr. R.C. Joshi
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Ladhrecha-AAG, assisted by Mr.
Vikash Choudhary
_____________________________________________________
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR
Reportable Order
09/05/2017
All the abovementioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical.
The petitioners herein are seeking appointment to the post of Safai Employees in pursuance to the advertisement dated 25.05.2012. 11376 posts were advertised for the post of Safai Employees vide advertisement dated 25.05.2012. Out of these posts, 601 posts were to be filled by Municipal Council, Bikaner. From these 601 posts, 307 posts were kept for General category (4 of 5) [ CW-7371/2014] and out of these 307 posts, 206 posts were to be filled from General category. It is therefore evident that the total posts were 206 but only 52 candidates (38 Male candidates + 14 Female candidates) in the General category applied. The respondents decided to fill up these posts through lottery based system. While doing so, the names of the candidates belonging to the General category and SC category were put together in the same lot before drawing the lottery. Whereas, total 206 posts were required to be filled by General category and only 52 candidates were available. Hence, all the 52 candidates were entitled to be appointed before transferring the remaining posts in the category of SC.
No explanation, rational or the object behind joining together both the categories is forthcoming. The very method of joining both the categories together while drawing lottery and thus depriving the petitioners for appointment by putting them up in a disadvantageous position vis. a vis. the Scheduled Caste category (SC) is unfair and in this manner is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory. The same is not supported by Rule, Order of Regulation. It has caused prejudice to the petitioners. The selection of the petitioners which was certain in view of the candidates being less than the number of posts was not only nullified but the petitioners were deprived of their rightful claim under the General category for which the posts were kept separately to be filled from the said category. Adopting the procedure of filing up the posts by a lottery system is one thing (5 of 5) [ CW-7371/2014] and violating the clause in the advertisement vide which a fixed number of posts were kept for each respective category in spite of the availability of the candidates in the said category is another. While filling up the posts through lottery system, the respondents could not have reduced or increased the number of posts to be filled under the respective category.
While issuing notices, the directions were issued to keep the posts reserved for the candidates who had filed the writ petition. Out of 52 candidates, only 22 candidates (19 Male candidates + 3 Female Candidates) from the General category have filed the present writ petition.
In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed and the respondents are directed to offer appointment to the petitioners forthwith if otherwise qualified and eligible. The needful be done within two months from today. However, it is clarified that the said appointment shall relate back to the date of filing of the present writ petition i.e. November, 2014. However, only notional benefits shall be given.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR), J.
arvind/93-96