Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Umakant Sharma vs State Education Departmentors ... on 19 March, 2025
Author: Sameer Jain
Bench: Sameer Jain
[2025:RJ-JP:12915]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 286/2015
Umakant Sharma S/o Late Shri Paramanand Ji Sharma, Ward
No. 13, Munim Pada, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur
Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, School
And Sanskrit Education, Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
3. Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner Raj.
4. Mukesh Kumar Sharma, Sr. Teacher Science, Secondary
Education C/o Director, Secondary Education, Bikaner
Raj..
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Purvi Gupta for
Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Ms. Namita Parihar, Dy.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Judgment
19/03/2025
1. The present writ petition pertains to the year 2015 and the same is listed on directions of the Court under head of "Recruitment Legacy Matters" (Code 515). At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought for an adjournment, however, taking note of the fact that the present petition pertains to the year 2015 and is up on board in the year 2025; that a number of early listing applications are moved by the learned counsel for the petitioner; that on erstwhile occasions either of the (Downloaded on 25/03/2025 at 09:46:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12915] (2 of 8) [CW-286/2015] parties have sought for adjournment, which has affected the efficacious disposal of the matter; as no reasonable and satisfactory reasons are put forth by the learned counsel by which it can be deemed essential that the matter should be deferred, this Court in the interest of justice and prompt adjudication has taken the matter for hearing. However, upon a subsequent mentioning and plea made by learned counsel Mr. Shiv Charan Gupta, permission to submit written submissions is granted.
2. The present petition is filed seeking directions for recruitment and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sr. Teacher, Grade-II, Secondary School (Science subject), operation of reserved list; and with the following prayer:
"i) Pleased to direct the respondents to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Sr.Teacher, Grade II, Secondary School education, in Science subject, in pursuance of the selection list (ann.-7) and provide/give the same from the very date on which less meritorious / lower in the list , have been given appointment e.g. 14/9/2012 with consequential benefits.
ii) In alternate, pleased to direct the respondents to consider and given him appointment to the post of Sr.Teacher, Grade II, Secondary School education, in Science subject, as his name appeared at serial no.8 in the reserve list and 15 candidates of general category of the main selection list were not given appointment due to rejection / missing of their final detail application forms."
3. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent-RPSC issued an advertisement dated 01.06.2011, inviting applications for the post (2373 seats in total and 781 for general category candidates) of Senior Teacher (Science subject) Grade II -Secondary Education, as per the rules i.e. Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules, 1971. It is (Downloaded on 25/03/2025 at 09:46:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12915] (3 of 8) [CW-286/2015] further submitted that the petitioner is deprived illegally and arbitrarily of his due valuable right of consideration for recruitment and appointment despite his name being included in the selection list (Annexure-7) and the candidates who have scored lower than the petitioner are given appointments.
4. Further, learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court upon the selection list, wherein the name of the petitioner is reflected at Serial No. 632. It is further submitted that the respondents have not shown any cogent reason as to why the candidature of the petitioner is ousted. Therefore, it can be deduced that the candidature of the petitioner is rejected in an arbitrary and whimsical manner, violating the fundamental rights of the petitioner as enshrined under Article 14, 16, 21, and 309 of the Constitution of India.
5. It is further submitted that the name of the petitioner is reflected at Serial No. 8 in the reserved list issued by the respondents. Nevertheless, 15 candidates from the selection list were not given appointment on account of rejection of their candidature before appointment, due to rejection of their candidature before the appointment. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent-RPSC vide letter dated 29.10.2014 had released the said information. Therefore, it is pleaded that the respondents be directed to fill the remaining list and operate the reserved list.
6. Learned counsel Ms. Purvi Gupta has argued the matter at length as stated above.
(Downloaded on 25/03/2025 at 09:46:11 PM)
[2025:RJ-JP:12915] (4 of 8) [CW-286/2015]
7. Per contra, learned Dy.G.C. has stoutly opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the initial result was released on 05.03.2012 wherein, the cut-off marks for the general male category was 319.66 however, the petitioner had scored 319.22 marks. It is further submitted that the said list of candidates was then forwarded to the department on 11.06.2012 and thereafter, the respondent-RPSC had no role to play in the said selection process.
8. Further, learned Dy.G.C. has placed reliance upon Annexure - R2/1 i.e. the Circular dated 19.07.2001 issued by Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel bearing No.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. whereby it was categorically stated and directed that the reserved list that is made by RPSC vis-a-vis any public examination shall to be made operative, if necessary, within a period of six months from a date of issuance. Therefore, the contention made by learned counsel for the petitioner qua the plea of making the reserve list operative is not tenable, specifically when the petitioner has approached this Court after a delay of three years.
9. Consecutively, learned Dy.G.C. has drawn attention of this Court upon the directions spelled out by the Court in order dated 24.11.2014 passed in SBCWP No.3541/2014 titled as Pooja Sharma & Ors. Vs. RPSC, Ajmer & Ors. whereby the respondents were directed to grant appointment as per the revised merit list, vis-a-vis the impugned selection process within a stipulated period. Additionally, it was directed that the respondents shall not oust the candidates who were already granted appointment, but do not figure in the revised merit list, if (Downloaded on 25/03/2025 at 09:46:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12915] (5 of 8) [CW-286/2015] there was nothing adverse against them on record and if sufficient vacant seats were available qua the respective subject.
10. It is further contended that the petitioner as per the revised merit list had secured 323.90 marks which is less than the cut-off marks under the category of the petitioner (General Male) i.e. 328.18. Therefore, the relief claimed by the petitioner is not sustainable. Consecutively, it is submitted that the respondent - RPSC vide the Press Note dated 17.05.2012 (Annexure - R2/2) had requested the candidates in the reserve list to submit their detailed application form, while clarifying therein, that submission of detailed application form would not mean that the names of the candidates will be recommended to the department for appointment. Therefore, the petitioner cannot choose the words of his choice from the Press Note, suppressing the further part of the same.
11. It is further apprised that the Court vide order dated 05.05.2023 had directed the respondents to file an affidavit to bring on record the marks (initial and after the revised merit list was released) obtained by the candidates who were at Serial no. 637, 638, 641, 642, 645, 646, 648, 655, 656, 657, 720, 723,, 725, 748 and 768; and in compliance of the same, an affidavit dated 15.09.2023 was filed, which further substantiates and makes the stance of the respondents that the petitioner had scored marks less than the cut-off, under the respective category unambiguous.
12. Lastly, learned Dy.G.C. has submitted that qua the representation as averred by the learned counsel for the (Downloaded on 25/03/2025 at 09:46:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12915] (6 of 8) [CW-286/2015] petitioner, it can be noted that for the same no postal receipt is placed on record.
13. Having heard and considering the rival arguments made by the learned counsel for the parties, the written submissions furnished by the counsel representing the petitioner and from a perusal of the material available on record, the following findings are noted:
13.1 That albeit learned counsel representing the petitioner had moved applications for early listing of the matter, the present petition is listed on the directions of this Court, under the category of 'Recruitment matters' under code 515, in the year 2025 (last listed in the year 2023).
13.2 That the impugned advertisement was issued in the year 2011, pursuant to the said selection process, the result was declared in the year 2012, after the directions of the Court passed in the case of Pooja Sharma & Ors. (supra) the revised result was declared in the year 2014. Thereafter, the present petition is filed in the year 2015, from the said chronology of events, it can be deduced that the present petition is filed after a delay of approximately three years in correspondence with the advertisement of the year 2011.
13.3 That in the initial result dated 05.03.2012, the cut-off for general (male) category was stated to be 319.66 however, the petitioner had scored 319.22. Accordingly, the petitioner's name was included in the reserved candidates' list at serial No.8 and not in the selected candidates' list. It is unambiguous and undisputed that the reserve list qua any public service examination can be made operative only within a period of six months (Circular dated (Downloaded on 25/03/2025 at 09:46:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12915] (7 of 8) [CW-286/2015] July 19th, 2001 - Annexure- R2/2). It is also pertinent to note that the said circular is not assailed by the petitioners in the present petition.
13.4 That in compliance of the directions passed in the case of Pooja Sharma & Ors. (supra) the respondents has issued revised merit list, therein the cut-off marks qua the category of the petitioner were 328.18 and the petitioner had scored 323.90 marks. Therefore, it can be inferred that the petitioner was lower in merit in terms and the marks scored by him. Nevertheless, in compliance of the directions encapsulated in the said judgment the respondent - RPSC and the concerned department had filled the remaining vacant posts as per the merit scored by the eligible candidates and the cut-off marks for the respective categories. 13.5 That in the present petition, no interim order is operative in favor of the petitioner. Nevertheless, the petitioner has presented before the Court half baked facts vis-a-vis the contents of the Press Note dated 17.05.2012.
13.6 That the reliance placed by the counsel representing the petitioners in their written submissions upon the ratio encapsulated in State of J & K and ors. Vs. Sat Pal reported in AIR 2013 SC 1258, Radhey Shayam Godara Vs. RPSC & Ors.
(SBCWP No. 795/2015 decided on 21.09.2015) and Inturi Rama Rao VS. Union of India &Anr. Reported in (2015) 13 SCC 374 is distinguishable on one on other facts as therein, either interim orders were passed or vacant seats were available. 13.7 In pursuance of the contentions noted insofar, and taking note of the fact that as on date no seats are lying vacant and the submissions made in the affidavit filed in response to the order dated (Downloaded on 25/03/2025 at 09:46:11 PM) [2025:RJ-JP:12915] (8 of 8) [CW-286/2015] 05.05.2023; it is presumed that subsequent selection process(es) is/are initiated, this Court deems it apposite to place reliance upon the ratio encapsulated in State of Orissa & Anr. v. Raj Kishore Nanda & Ors. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 777, Girdhar Kumar Dadhich Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2009) 2 SCC 706, Union of India v. B. Valluvan reported in (2006) 8 SCC 686 and Raj Rishi Mehra & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Anr. reported in (2013) 12 SCC 243, and the circulars issued by the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel dated 19.07.2001 bearing No. F.7(2)/DOP/A-2/81 Pt. and Øekad i-7 ¼2½ dkfeZd@d&2@81 ikVZ dated 13.01.2016 passed by jktLFkku ljdkj dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx, whereby it is made unambiguous that qua the selection process for any public service examination, the waiting/reserved list lapses after a span of six months from the date of its issuance, and if appointments are already made, then no judicial interference can be made at a belated stage.
14. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to take appropriate legal recourse, if the facts are otherwise. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SAMEER JAIN),J Preeti Asopa /47 (Downloaded on 25/03/2025 at 09:46:11 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)