Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Miss Sarvatnishat Khan vs State Of Raj & Anr on 22 December, 2016
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
-1- [22/12/16CW1269/16]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR
S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1269 of 2003
PETITIONER :
Sarvat Nishat Khan S/o Azan Shah Khan w/o Mohammad Nasir Khan, aged 38
years, Caste Muslim, General, R/o Sawai Madhpour 1/406, Housing Board
Colony, Sawai Madhpour Rajasthan.
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS :
1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary, college Education Department,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, College Education Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
Judgment reserved on December 6th, 2016
Judgment pronounced on December 22nd, 2016
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
Dr. Y. C. Sharma, for the petitioner.
Mr. S. N. Kumawat, ]
Mr. Manu Bhargava, G C ] for the respondents
Judgment:
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following prayer:-
"(i) Directing Non-petitioners to allow appointment to the petitioner on a post of Lecturer in Zoology from the date on which appointment were allowed to other similar candidates. Consequential benefits of seniority, pay and allowances may also be allowed to the petitioner.
(ii) The impugned order dated 29.11.2002 (Annexure-
4) may quashed and set aside to the extent of a post of Lecturer in Zoology.
(iii) Any other order, which may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
-2- [22/12/16CW1269/16] The brief facts of the case as noted by this Court are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) advertised 32 posts of College Lecturer (Zoology) and the petitioner being eligible appeared in the interview on 28/2/2002. The petitioner was declared successful and was placed on serial no.1 in the waiting list issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC). The R.P.S.C. filled only 30 posts vide order dated 11/9/2002 as the two candidates in the merit list were declared ineligible under the Rajasthan Civil Service (Conduct) Rules, 1971, because they were having more than two children. The petitioner being eligible and being the first candidates in the waiting list sought entitlement to be given appointment on such vacant posts.
The respondents filed a reply to the writ petition and stated that the fact that the notification issued by the Government declaring the candidates having more than two children is ineligible for the post of college lecturer was subsequently modified vide notification dated 8/4/2003 to the extent that candidates more than two children before 1/6/2002 were treated eligible for being appointed on the post of college lecturer and such amendment led to appointment of both the candidates made ineligible .
The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the case of Virender S. Hooda & Ors. vs. State of Harayana & Anr. in Civil Appeal No.2286/1999 decided on 13/3/1999 (reported in SLR 1999 (2) P. 191) whereby the Public Service Commission could fill the additional vacancies which occur in the particular department within a period of next six months from the merit list notified earlier.
The Counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the case of Sarita Chaudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB CWP No.9500/2014 decided on 11/9/2015.
This Court is of the opinion that since none of the candidates was meritorious than the petitioner have been given appointment and the two candidates whose appointment was withheld from the merit list have been subsequently given appointment vide orders dated 1/5/2003 and 7/5/2003. Therefore, the petitioner's right to be appointed does not exist. Moreover, it is the prerogative of the respondents so as to decide
-3- [22/12/16CW1269/16] how far to operate the merit list and as to how many posts they may need to fill. This Court is also of the opinion that in the present facts and the circumstances of the case no right accrues to the petitioner to be appointed being on waiting list number one for the purpose of recruitment in question.
That the petitioner also raised the issue of guest faculty scheme which has no bearing upon the present case as the same was only a temporary arrangement to meet out the discharge of duties of education by such persons. The case law referred by the counsel for the petitioner is such that it terms the discretion of the respondents to operate the merit list but however no right would be created in the favour of the petitioner as the respondents have not chosen to operate the merit list. It is respondent's prerogative to fill the number of extra seats in accordance with law.
Therefore, I do not find any reason to grant any indulgence to the petitioner in the writ jurisdiction, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI ), J.
K. Kumawat/