Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Judgment REPORTABLE Reserved on 11/07/2019 Pronounced on 09/08/2019 Per Hon'ble Chief Justice

1. All these appeals challenge a common judgment and order of a learned Single Judge, who disposed of a large number of writ petitions, which had impugned the recruitment and appointment to the post of Safai Karamcharis, through a process that began in April, 2018.

2. The State of Rajasthan (hereafter "the State") by advertisement dated 13th April, 2018, invited applications from eligible candidates for appointment as 'Safai Karamchari' (hereafter "the 2018 recruitment"). Simultaneously, the State withdrew its earlier advertisements dated 25th May, 2012 and 31st May, 2012, to the extent of appointments not made, after completion of selection process (in terms of those two advertisements). The State however clarified that those participating in the two recruitments of 2012, were to be (9 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] considered in the new selection process initiated by advertisement dated 13th April, 2018, by allowing age relaxation to them. Writ petitions were instituted challenging the 2018 recruitment process, on various grounds. The grounds urged were firstly, legality of the procedure for direct recruitment on the basis of a lottery system; secondly whether SC/ST reserved category candidates could be considered for OBC or general category vacancies after the vacancies for their category were filled; thirdly, legality of including vacancies left over from the selection process of year 2012, to the extent where appointments could not be made, in the 2018 recruitment.

                         (10 of 42)                                 [SAW-1733/2018]


5.   Selection,   (to    the    vacancies        in    the      cadre    of   Safai

Karamcharis) in the first phase from amongst open category and Scheduled Caste candidates was challenged; by an order dated 19th January, 2016, this Court declared the bifurcation of two categories for recruitment in the first phase, was illegal and unconstitutional. The State was restrained from providing any reservation of posts to 'Valmiki' and 'Hela' Societies, in the name of preference. It was further held that appointment by lottery system introduced by the amendment to the rules could not be applied to recruitment process initiated vide advertisement dated 25th May, 2012. Consequently, the selections made through lottery system in the year 2012, were declared illegal. A Division Bench of this Court in Amit Gujarati and Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors: (DBCWP No. 14059/2015, decided on 19-05- 2016), observed that the recruitment process initiated by advertisement dated 25-05-2012, applying amended provision made on 23rd January, 2014, was illegal, and directed the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur, to proceed with the recruitment process according to the Rules in vogue on the date of advertisement, if the recruitment process was required to be proceeded further. On 19th December, 2017, however, another bench of this Court in Lalit Kumar & Ors. v Principal Secretary to the Govt. & Ors. (SBCWP No. 11914/2015), in the backdrop of observations made by the Division Bench in the case of Amit Gujarati & Ors. (supra), keeping in view the dearth of Safai Karamcharis, directed all the Municipal Corporations to proceed with appointment in terms of selection already made under the advertisement dated 25th May, 2012, forthwith. Selections made in some municipalities were found to be plagued by irregularities; in some cases such selections were cancelled. In relation to Ajmer, the writ application(s) challenging such cancellations, were dismissed. However, in intra-court appeals preferred, it surfaced that in some cases appointments were made on the basis of wrong or forged experience certificates; the court held however that for these individual lapses or irregularities, the entire selection process would not have been cancelled. The court therefore directed the State to complete the selection process (11 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018] within a period of two months by proper scrutiny of the documents/certificates, separating the tainted from untainted. If sufficient number of eligible candidates were not available an advertisement was required to be issued afresh immediately. In the meanwhile, Rules of 2012 were amended.