Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Vipin Sharma vs R P S C Ajmer And Ors on 22 May, 2019
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.22148/2017
Vipin Sharma S/o Shri Shiv Shankar Sharma, R/o C-55, Arjun
Marg, Singh Bhoomi, Khatipura, Distt. Jaipur Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
2. The State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Finance Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. The Director, Directorate Of Treasuries And Accounts Dta-
Government Of Rajasthan, Vitta Bhawan, Jaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Vigyan Shah.
For Respondent(s) : Mr.M.F. Baig.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA
Order
22/05/2019
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) on 18.09.2013 had advertised for recruitment to the post of Junior Accountant (JA) and Tehsil Revenue Accountant (TRA). In respect of the vacancies advertised 12.5 % were reserved in the quota of ministerial employees (ME quota). The last date for submitting the application for the said post was 15.06.2015. (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:15:17 AM)
(2 of 7) [CW-22148/2017] The petitioner admittedly at the relevant time was posted at LDC Gr.II in the Commercial Taxes Department and as a ministerial employee entitled to avail a seat in the ME quota. Subsequent to the last date of submitting applications for the recruitment in issue and while the recruitment was underway, the petitioner was promoted on 28.07.2016 on the post of Tax Assistant on probation for a period of one year.
The result of the written examination for the post of JA/ TRA conducted by RPSC was declared on 16.05.2017 and the petitioner was selected in the ME quota in which he had applied. However RPSC did not recommend his name for appointment in the ME quota despite his selection in the written examination on the ground that as on the date of recommendation the petitioner was not a ministerial employee having been promoted to the next higher post i.e. Tax Assistant--not a ministerial post--on probation vide order dated 28.07.2016.
Aggrieved the petitioner has approached this court. The issue in the petition is as to whether the status of the petitioner as a ministerial employee entitled to the benefit of ME (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:15:17 AM) (3 of 7) [CW-22148/2017] quota has to be considered as on the last date of submitting the application pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.09.2013 or whether the subsequent change in his status resulting from his promotion above the ministerial quota has to be considered for his entitlement of the benefit of ME quota for appointment as JA/ TRA.
Mr.Vigyan Shah counsel for the petitioner submitted that it is the status of the petitioner as on the last date of submitting his application for appointment to the post of JA/ TRA i.e. 15.06.2015 which has to be considered. Per contra, Mr.M.F. Baig counsel for the respondent contended that it is status of the petitioner as obtaining on the date of the recommendations for appointment to post in issue which is relevant and as the petitioner on the date of recommendation was not in a ministerial quota but had been promoted therefrom to the post of Tax Assistant--he could not be recommended to be appointed as JA/ TRA despite his merit, in the quota of ministerial employee.
Mr.Vigyan Shah submitted that the defence of RPSC has no legs to stand on as the issue before this court is no more res integra and is covered by the view taken by the Division Bench of (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:15:17 AM) (4 of 7) [CW-22148/2017] this Court in the case of Manju Bala Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.463/2017) decided on 05.10.2017. He submitted that albeit the said judgment related to the appointment in the quota of divorcee, the law enunciated therein attracts on all fours to the case at hand. He submitted that the Division Bench in Manju Bala Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra) held that eligibility for appointment to a post advertised for recruitment is to be ascertained with reference to the last date of submitting the application form and not with reference to the declaration of the result of an examination. Mr.Vigyan Shah further submitted that in any event an applicant seeking benefit of a quota as ministerial employee in the government service in the quota reserved for such employees cannot be prejudiced by the delays in the appointment process and promotion meantime as it would be wholly unjust to put such ministerial employee to a disadvantage for being found fit for promotion from the ministerial cadre and being denied for that reason the ministerial employee quota for appointment to the post in issue. Mr.Vigyan Shah submitted that (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:15:17 AM) (5 of 7) [CW-22148/2017] suitability of an employee for promotion cannot take away his right obtaining at the time of the application--in this case as a ministerial employee.
Mr.M.F. Baig except for a bald submission that the eligibility of candidate has to be taken not on the last date of submitting the application, but as on the date of recommendation has not been able to support it with any statutory or even other provision or decided case. In fact if Mr.M.F. Baig's contention were to so accepted by this court it would entail punishing a candidate applying in the ME quota only for the reason that on his seniority/ efficiency he has been promoted to the next higher but non- ministerial post during the recruitment process.
Consequently, I would be inclined to allow this petition and hold, following the judgment of Division Bench in the case of Manju Bala Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra), that the petitioner's eligibility for appointment in the ME quota for a post of JA/ TRA pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.09.2013 necessarily has to be considered with reference to his status as on the last date of the application i.e. 15.06.2015. The (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:15:17 AM) (6 of 7) [CW-22148/2017] petitioner now be so considered for appointment in terms of his merit on the post of JA/ TRA in the ME quota. In the event of petitioner being appointed, he will be entitled to the notional benefits--not to any monetary benefits.
The Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. State of Haryana [(1985)4 SCC 417] has held that justice is not the function of the courts alone, it is also the duty of other state functionaries when expected to take decision on matters before them. The obligation to do justice therefore attaches to every organ of the State. And in fact if it were no so, the courts would be choked with issues which in the normal course are to be decided by the administrative authority in the course of its day to day business and the citizens left gasping for their rights--a wholly untenable and frightening situation which cannot come to pass or be countenanced.
Sadly the RPSC had been wanting in its duty of doing justice and has mechanically without any application of mind denied the petitioner consideration for appointment as a ministerial employee in the ME quota on the post of JA/ TRA as per his merit at the (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:15:17 AM) (7 of 7) [CW-22148/2017] written examination following the advertisement dated 18.09.2013.
For reason of its lackadaisical attitude and failure to discharge its duty of care and fairness the RPSC is visited with cost of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited with the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of three months from today.
The petition is accordingly allowed.
(ALOK SHARMA),J Karan Bhutani /531/168 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 03:15:17 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)