Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
State Of Raj And Anr vs Sunil Kumar Sharma&Anr; on 13 July, 2016
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.248/2016 The State of Rajathan & Another v. Sanju Nama D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.249/2016 The State of Rajathan & Another v. Mahesh Kumar Kabra & Anr D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.250/2016 The State of Rajathan & Another v. Bharat Singh & Another D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.251/2016 The State of Rajathan & Another v. Saroj Kumari D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.252/2016 The State of Rajathan & Another v. Ashok Kumar & Others D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.253/2016 The State of Rajathan & Another v. Rakesh Kumar & Another D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.293/2016 State of Rajathan & Another v. Sunil Kumar Sharma & Another Date of order : 13th July 2016 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.K. Ranka Mr. Shyam Arya, AAG, for appellants Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma } Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore } counsel for respondents
By the Court The instant batch of appeals have been preferred against the self same judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 8.10.2015. The office has pointed out delay in filing of the appeals, in respect thereof applications have been filed to condone the delay.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. Delay has been satisfactorily explained. Application is allowed. Delay in filing of the appeals is condoned.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties on merits.
The basic skeletal facts which has been noticed by the learned Single Judge is in respect to the selection process which was initiated by the recruiting authority of the post of Live Stock Assistant, the post which is included in the schedule appended to the Rajasthan Animal Husbandry Subordinate Service Rules, 1977. Initially 525 posts of Live Stock Assistant came to be advertised pursuant to Advertisement dated 27.1.2011 and merit list was prepared based on the marks secured by the applicants in the qualifying examination including award of bonus marks, but by intervention of this Court in the earlier batch of litigation, in Writ Petition No.9001/2011, the bonus marks were reduced to 10 and accordingly the process was initiated to publish the merit list of the candidates who have participated in the selection process It manifest that the criteria of awarding marks for preparing merit list of the candidates again came to be challenged by filing of subsequent litigation in S.B. Writ Petition No.2437/2011, and that came to be decided vide order dated 6.8.2012 and this Court directed to prepare the select list based on average marks of written and practical examination so as to have a proper and fair criteria for preparation of merit, but by the time the matter came to be decided and this Court directing to revise the criteria of determination of merit of the candidates who have participated in the selection process, certain appointments were made and by revising the criteria and declaring the revised merit list pursuant to order of this Court dated 26.8.2012 resulting termination of 26 candidates and inducting fresh 26 candidates in the merit list.
Those candidates who were ousted from the merit list finally prepared in compliance of order of the Court dated 6.8.2012 resulting termination, approached this Court by filing of the batch of writ petitions and in the passage of time the subsequent selection process was initiated by the recruiting authority and out of the batch of writ petitioners most of them were selected except the three who did not even applied in the subsequent advertisement obviously as they were already selected and appointed after they have participated in the selection process pursuant to Advertisement dated 27.1.2011 and that has been noticed by the learned Single Judge in its order impugned and they were namely Saroj Kumari d/o Sanwat Ram, Sunil Kumar Sharma s/o Krishna Gopal and Ramesh Jyani s/o Bhanwar Lal, and the question arose as to how those three candidates could be allowed to continue in service.
The learned Single Judge, after due deliberation and taking into consideration the material on record and so also the fact that all the three were initially placed in the order of merit and accordingly considered for appointment and they have served the institution for some time and were never at fault, in totality of the matter considered it that let they may be placed at the bottom of the merit list prepared pursuant to Advertisement dated 27.1.2011 and may be adjusted against the existing vacancies.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the order impugned before us of the learned Single Judge, taking note of the facts and circumstances we find no infirmity that may require interference. Consequently, all the appeals are devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed.
(J.K. Ranka) J. (Ajay Rastogi) J. db 30-36
[All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.] Deepankar Bhattacharya P