Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Manoj Kumar Jain S/O Shri Ramesh Chand ... vs The State Of Rajasthan Through ... on 25 September, 2018
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 21846/2018
Manoj Kumar Jain S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Jain, Aged About 44
Years, By Caste Jain, R/o Jain Colony, Mandawar, Tehsil
Mandawar, District Dausa (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Law And Legal Affairs, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Joint Secretary, Department Of Law And Legal Affairs,
Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. District And Session Judge, District Dausa (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
25/09/2018
The petitioner in the instant petition has sought a direction to cancel the selection process for the post of Notary Public at Tehsil Mandawar (Sub-Division Mahua) District Dausa in pursuance of notification dt.31.08.2018. The petitioner has further prayed to declare the result of earlier selection process initiated vide notification dt.06.09.2016 for Tehsil Mandawar (Sub-Division Mahua) District Dausa.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that initially a notification dt.06.09.2016 was issued wherein applications were invited for appointment of Notary Public in different districts including district Dausa and there was one post of Notary Public (2 of 4) [CW-21846/2018] for Mandawar (Sub-Division Mahua) District Dausa. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the interview for the said post for Mandawar and finally result was declared on 22.05.2018.
Learned counsel has submitted that in the result dt.22.05.2018, the respondents in arbitrary manner did not select any person on the post of Notary Public for Mandawar (Sub- Division Mahua) District Dausa. Learned counsel has submitted that on the one hand selection process was not completed for Mandawar (Sub-Division Mahua) District Dausa and on the other hand the respondents issued select list for different places.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondents have again issued a notification dt.31.08.2018 and included one post Notary Public for Mandawar. The petitioner has been forced to appear again in the interview and the result of the said selection process is going to be declared.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised three grievances before this Court:-
(i) The respondents have acted illegally in not declaring the result for Mandawar. The result declared in respect of other places and not declaring the same for Mandawar, is non-completion of selection process, which has resulted into violation of petitioner's right for fair consideration
(ii) The respondents have selectively issued the select list and intentionally they have not included the candidate for Notary Public for Mandawar
(iii) The notification dt.31.08.2018 has illegally included the post of Notary Public for Mandawar as the selection ought to have been completed as per the earlier notification dt.06.09.2018.
(3 of 4) [CW-21846/2018] I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the respondents while issuing the notification dt.06.09.2016 had invited applications from the eligible candidates for considering them for appointment as Notary Public. The mere participation in the selection process does not result into vested right of candidate to get selected.
This Court finds that the respondents declared result of other candidates on 22.05.2018 and if they have not included the result of Mandawar, no illegality can be attached to be said declaration of the result.
This Court finds that in the subsequent notification dt.31.08.2018 the post of Notary Public is sought to be filled by inviting fresh application and petitioner himself has appeared in the said selection process. The petitioner has availed remedy of participating in the selection process again and as such no grievance can be allowed to be raised by the petitioner as none of his rights have been affected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2014 (7) JT 417 [Joginder Pal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.]. The learned counsel buttressed his submission on the basis of said judgment. Learned counsel has submitted that if the selection process is not completed and it is stopped in between because of selection of some ineligible candidate, the Appointing Authority cannot be permitted to deprive the eligible and untainted candidates from appointment.
The close scrutiny of the said judgment reveals that the Apex Court has considered the facts that there were some candidates (4 of 4) [CW-21846/2018] who were required to be segregated, as they were untainted and unblemished candidates who were eligible because of their merit could not be deprived from appointment.
This Court finds that the Apex court has clearly laid down the distinction between the selected candidates on the basis of their merit and candidates who have untainted record for selection. The same principal can not be made applicable in the case of the present petitioner.
This Court does not find in the writ petition any force and the same is dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J A.Kumar/64 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)