Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vijendra Singh & Others vs . State Of Rajasthan & Ors. on 2 December, 2014
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench DB Special Appeal (W) No.1484/2013 Vijendra Singh & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (ALONGWITH COGNATE CASES AS PER SCHEDULE APPENDED) Date of Order ::: 02/12/2014 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice Veerendr Singh Siradhana FOR APPELLANTS: SARVA SHRI SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, SR. ADV. WITH GAURAV SHARMA- RAM PRATAP SAINI- ANIL KUMAR JAIN-ANOOP DHAND- ARVIND KUMAR ARORA- ASHWINI JAIMAN- B S MADERNA- BALBIR SINGH BENIWAL- BRIJESH BHARDWAJ- C. P. SHARMA- DK BHARDWAJ- D.S DHARIWAL- DHARMENDRA AGRAWAL- DHEEREEJ TRIPATHI- GAURAV SHARMA- GIRISH KHANDALWAL- HANUMAN CHAUDHARY- HARSH SAINI- HEMENDRA GOYAL- HOSSIYAR SINGH ARYA- JAI DEEP SINGH RATHORE- JEETENDRA KUMAR SHARMA- K L MEENA- KAILASH KATARA- KARAN PAL SINGH- KHALID MEHMOOD UMAR FAIZ- KULDEEP ASWAL- MAHENDRA SHAH- MANISH KUMAR SHARMA- MANISH SHARMA- MOHAN SINGH MEENA- NK SINGHAL- N K TIWARI- NAVEEN DHAWAN- NEERAJ JOSHI- NIDHI KHANDELWAL- OP MISHRA- POONAM CHAND BHANDARI- R D MEENA- R K SAINI-RAGHUNANDAN SHARMA- RAJ KUMAR GOYAL- RAJ KUMAR SAINI- RAJ KUMAR SHARMA- RAJEEV SOGARWAL- RAJENDRA YADAV- RAJESH BHAMBOO- RAJVEER GURJAR- RAM BABU SHARMA- RAMESHWAR SHARMA- S K BENIWAL- R. S. N. MEENA- S S NARUKA- SACHIN MEHTA- SAMAY SINGH- SANDEEP GARSSA- SANJAY MEHRISHI- SHAILENDRA SINGH- SHASHANK AGARWAL- SUMIT KHANDELWAL- SUNIL KUMAR JAIN- SUNIL KUMAR SINGODIYA- SURENDRA KUMAR NAGAR- SURESH KUMAR- ANVEER AHMED- VD GATHALA- VIGYAN SHAH- VIJAY PATHAK- VIJENDRA KUMAR YADAV- VINOD KUMAR JHAJHARIA- VISHWANATH KARAN RATHORE- MR. S K GUPTA AAG- In the instant bunch of appeals the order passed by the ld. Single Judge dt.19.12.2013 is under challenge and almost all the appeals have been filed after seeking leave of this Court. Counsel jointly submits that the basic apprehension of the writ petitioners-appellants before the ld. Single Judge was that after they were appointed on the basis of their placement in the order of merit list published by the respondent State and list stood revised on two occasions, the state govt. took decision that such number of applicants who are in excess against number of vacancies advertised appropriate action may be taken against them obviously to terminate their services and general order was passed by the state govt. on 30.08.2013.
The ld. Single Judge of this Court under the impugned judgment examined the validity of the process adopted by the respondent state and arrived to a conclusion that appointment in excess of the number of vacancies advertised cannot be filled may be in any exigency and such of the applicants who did not find place in the order of merit right could not be said to be conferred if merit stands revised at later point of time. Thereafter, fresh bunch of writ petitions came to be filed for the self same process held for the post of Teacher Gr. III (Level I & II) and the grievance pointed out by the writ petitioners was that still after the merit list stood revised based on erroneous model answer keys leading to erroneous results requires a fresh look and pointed out that still questions are left out, their key answer apparently on the face of it are incorrect and the petitioner suffered injustice subject to erroneous model answer keys.
Coordinate Single Bench of this Court examined the issue and disposed of the writ petitions vide judgment dt.18.11.2014 with the direction for constituting Expert Committee and to examine and evaluate the lis and if need be may be revised accordingly. At the same time, also observed that such of the applicants who were already given appointment and working for more than a year such of them if did not find place in the revised merit list which is to be prepared under the direction of the Court and such of the person who were in excess of the advertised vacancies they may be retained and placed in the bottom of the list.
Counsel for appellant jointly submits that in the light of protection which has now been granted to them by the Coordinate Single Bench of this Court in SB CWP-10622/2014 & other, the present appeals may be disposed of.
Counsel for respondent, on the other hand, submits that in the light of the latter judgment of which reference has been made by this Court above, cause of action of the present appellants apprehending their termination of services may not survive any more and the appeals in fact have become infructuous.
Taking note of the submissions made, we refrain ourselves in expressing any opinion on merits as regards the later judgment dt.18.11.2014 passed by the ld. Single Judge in CWP-10622/2014 & connected petitions but are of the view that in the light of the facts brought to our notice, present bunch of appeals have become infructuous. However, we make it clear that if any order is passed at a later stage which may adversely affect the rights of any of the appellants, he/she is always at liberty to avail remedy which the law permits.
The instant special appeals having become infructuous accordingly dismissed.
[Veerendr Singh Siradhana], J. [Ajay Rastogi], J. dsr/-
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed"
Datar Singh P.S