Supreme Court - Daily Orders
State Of Rajasthan vs Archana Etc. on 29 November, 2016
Bench: J. Chelameswar, Prafulla C. Pant
1
Corrected
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32008-32009/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/09/2013
in DBCWP No. 4144/2013 25/09/2013 in DBCWP No. 9780/2013 passed by
the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jodhpur)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ARCHANA ETC. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for impleadment and withdrawal of SLP and interim
relief and office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 39720/2013
(With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for exemption from
filing O.T. and Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 3026/2014
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 7110/2014
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 22767/2014
(With Office Report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 19472-19475/2014
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1885/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1886/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1887/2015
(With Office Report)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by OM
PARKASH SHARMA
Date: 2016.12.10
SLP(C) No. 1884/2015
11:50:09 IST
Reason:
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 22387/2014
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)
2
SLP(C) No. 8584/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 2560/2016
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 28042/2016
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Interim Relief
and Office Report)
Date : 29/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery,Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Prateek Yadav,Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj,Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Anil,Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. H.D. Thanvi,Adv.
Mr. Rishi Matoliya,Adv.
Ms. Priti Thanvi,Adv.
Ms. Sumati Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv.
Mr. Jaideep Singh,Adv.
Mr. T. Gopal,Adv.
Ms. Anshul Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Mehul Singh,Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma,Adv.
Mr. R.R. Jangu,Adv.
Mr. Manish Paliwal,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Kumar,Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma,Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap,Adv.
Mr. Mukul Kumar,Adv.
3
Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari,Adv.
M/s Vidhi International,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C)NOS.32008-32009/2013, 39720/2013, 3026/2014, 1885/2015, 1886/2015, 1887/2015, 1884/2015 & 8584/2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is permitted to withdraw the application (I.A.No.3-4/2015) for withdrawal of SLP(C) No.32008-32009/2013.
Application for withdrawal of SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 is dismissed as withdrawn.
All the applications for impleadment are dismissed. Leave granted. The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C)NOS.7110/2014, 22767/2014, SLP(C)...CC No.19472-19475/2014, SLP(C) Nos.22387/2014, SLP(C)No.2560/2016 and SLP(C)No.28042/2016 Delay condoned in SLP(C)..CC No.19472-19475/2014. Leave granted in all the SLPs.
[O.P. SHARMA] [RAJINDER KAUR] AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 4 ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32008-32009/2013 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/09/2013 in DBCWP No. 4144/2013 25/09/2013 in DBCWP No. 9780/2013 passed by the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jodhpur) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS Petitioner(s) VERSUS ARCHANA ETC. Respondent(s) (with appln. (s) for impleadment and withdrawal of SLP and interim relief and office report) WITH SLP(C) No. 39720/2013 (With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Interim Relief and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 3026/2014 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report) SLP(C) No. 7110/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22767/2014 (With Office Report) S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 19472-19475/2014 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1885/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1886/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1887/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 1884/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 22387/2014 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report) 5 SLP(C) No. 8584/2015 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 2560/2016 (With Office Report) SLP(C) No. 28042/2016 (With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Interim Relief and Office Report) Date : 29/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery,Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Prateek Yadav,Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj,Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Anil,Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. H.D. Thanvi,Adv.
Mr. Rishi Matoliya,Adv.
Ms. Priti Thanvi,Adv.
Ms. Sumati Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv.
Mr. Jaideep Singh,Adv.
Mr. T. Gopal,Adv.
Ms. Anshul Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Mehul Singh,Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma,Adv.
Mr. R.R. Jangu,Adv.
Mr. Manish Paliwal,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Kumar,Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma,Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap,Adv.
Mr. Mukul Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari,Adv.
M/s Vidhi International,Adv.6
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R SLP(C)NOS.32008-32009/2013, 39720/2013, 3026/2014, 1885/2015, 1886/2015, 1887/2015, 1884/2015 & 8584/2015 Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is permitted to withdraw the application (I.A.No.3-4/2015) for withdrawal of SLP(C) No.32008-32009/2013.
Application for withdrawal of SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 is dismissed as withdrawn.
All the applications for impleadment are dismissed. Leave granted. The appeals are allowed, in terms of the signed order.
SLP(C)NOS.7110/2014, 22767/2014, SLP(C)...CC No.19472-19475/2014, SLP(C) Nos.22387/2014, SLP(C)No.2560/2016 and SLP(C)No.28042/2016 Delay condoned in SLP(C)..CC No.10472-19475/2014. Leave granted in all the SLPs.
[O.P. SHARMA] [RAJINDER KAUR] AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file) 7 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.11406-11407 OF 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013) STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS APPELLANT(S) VERSUS ARCHANA ETC. RESPONDENT(S) WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.11408 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C)No.39720/2013) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11409 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C)No.3026/2014) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11410 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C)No.1885/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11411 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C)No.1886/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11412 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C)No.1887/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11413 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C)No.1884/2015) CIVIL APPEAL NO.11414 OF 2016 (@ SLP(C)No.8584/2015) O R D E R These eight special leave petitions arise out of a common judgment dated 25.9.2013 of the High Court of Rajasthan. The issue involved in these matters is no more res integra and covered by the judgment of this Court in Sachivalya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2016 (8) SCALE 64. 8 The Rajasthan Panchayti Raj Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') authorises the State of Rajasthan to carry out the objectives of the Act. In exercise of the power under the Act, Rules were framed by the State in the year 1996. Chapter 12 of the Rules relates to the recruitment and the service conditions for the Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan. Rule 273 deals with the procedure for making recruitment to the various posts. The proviso to the said rule authorises the Government to give some weightage to the experience of the candidates seeking employment. In exercise of the said power, the State of Rajasthan propounded a policy for weightage for experience. In substance: the weightage is 10 marks for experience of more than one year but less than 2 years, 20 marks for the experience of more than 2 years but less than 3 years and 30 marks for experience of more than 3 years. The complete details of the entire system may not be relevant for the present purpose. It is agreed on all hands that the facts leading in SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 be taken as representative facts in this batch of SLPs A writ petition came to be filed in the Rajasthan High Court by the first respondent herein-Archana in SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 praying that the above policy of the Government be implemented in the ongoing recruitment of the Junior Assistants in the Panchayati Raj Institutions. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High Court, while hearing the matter entertained the doubt whether the 9 said weightage proposed by the State is consistent with the law laid down by this Court in Uma Devi's case (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors 2006 (4) SCC 1), therefore, referred the matter to a Division Bench. By the judgment under appeal, the Division Bench though did not find anything wrong with the policy of giving weightage for the 'experience' gained by the candidates however, found that the bonus marks to the extent of 30 marks is unjust and arbitrary. The relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as follows:
“...(5) The grant of weightage in the form of bonus marks while making recruitment to the post in the services in question is not at all in contravention of the law laid down in the case of State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), and it is also not an effort to frustrate the law laid down in the case aforesaid; and (6) The grant of bonus marks to the extent of 30 marks is unjust, arbitrary and unfair, hence is declared illegal and is quashed. The State Government may grant the weightage in the form of bonus marks against service experience within the cap of 15 marks.” Aggrieved by the same, the State of Rajasthan, preferred the instant special leave petition being SLP (C)Nos.23008-32009/2013.
Leave granted in all the eight special leave petitions. The question of grant of weightage fell for consideration before this Court. It is a case where certain employees sought 10 regularisation of their service in the State of Rajasthan by filing a writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition there was a settlement of the dispute between the State and the employees Union. The relevant terms of settlement were as follows:
“..(2) In the event of the Government making regular selections for the vacant posts of Farrash/ Sweepers/Class IV/ Helper etc. the petitioners shall be given weightage as well as relaxation in the eligibility condition keeping in view their long duration of past services subject to their satisfactory performance.
(3) Subject to the giving of weightage and relaxation in the eligibility condition, the petitioners will have to compete with others, in case, the Government intends to make regular selections on the vacant posts of Farrash/ Sweepers/Class IV/ Helper etc.and...” Subsequently, the State sought to fill up some of the Class IV posts. The recruitment process came to be challenged by the employees Union on the ground that the recruitment was not consistent with the terms of the settlement entered into between the State and the employees Union earlier (the relevant portion of which is already extracted above). The question of legality of the policy of giving weightage for experience gained and whether such weightage would be consistent with the law declared by this Court in Uma Devi arose.
When this matter reached this Court, this Court held that Uma 11 Devi's case (supra) did not deal with the question of weightage but dealt with the mode of recruitment. It was further held that the quantum/measure of weightage could be decided by the State by adopting a rational policy in accordance with the law.
In the instant case, the State itself was the propounder of the policy (noticed above), giving the weightage which varied with the number of 'experience' gained by the employees. Therefore, the State cannot be heard to say that the policy is not a rational policy. Apart from that, we do not find anything arbitrary in the policy propounded by the State.
In the result, the appeals of the state as well as of the employees are allowed. We set aside the judgment under appeal to the extent that it held that the State Government may grant weightage/bonus marks against the service experience within the cap of 15 marks.
In other words, the policy propounded by the State must be allowed to operate on its own terms.
With the above directions the appeals are allowed as indicated above.
…....................J. [ J. CHELAMESWAR ] …....................J. [ PRAFULLA C. PANT ] NEW DELHI NOVEMBER 29, 2016