Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.30 seconds)Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Amit Gujrati vs State Of Rajasthan on 2 August, 2019
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
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:40 AM)
(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.
Madan Mohan Sharma & Anr vs State Of Rajasthan & Ors on 22 February, 2008
9. The State relied upon a Division Bench ruling in Akhil
Bhartiya Valmiki Samaj Arakshan Samajik Shodh & Vikas Samiti
(D.B. Civil Writ No. 13187/2018 Decided on 13.07.2018) and
justified the adoption of lottery system for selection and
recruitment to the vacancies. It was submitted that there is no
rule barring consideration of reserved category candidates against
general category vacancies; the State had relied upon the rule of
migration, in terms of which if candidates applying under a
reserved category are sufficiently merited in the selection
process, their appointments would be against general vacancies,
thus freeing the vacancies for reserved category candidates.
Thus, it was submitted that after filling up of posts in the reserved
category, the left-over candidates had a right to be considered
against the general vacancies. The State emphasizes here that
unlike in the case of other recruitment, no skill was tested; the
recruitment process did not involve the written test or interview.
As it was based upon chance, the provision for another
opportunity to reserved category candidates against general
vacancies could not be denied. The State relied upon Madan
Mohan Sharma & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (2008) 3
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:40 AM)
(13 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018]
SCC 724 and urged that merger of vacancies was not contrary to
law. It also highlighted that no candidate or applicant who
participated in the recruitment process in 2012 was prejudiced
because candidature of each, who could not be appointed, was
considered.
R. K. Sabharwal And Ors vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 10 February, 1995
In such circumstances, it was submitted
that this feature is not only discriminatory but contrary to the rule
of 'migration' evolved in R.K. Sabharwal v State of Punjab
(1995(2) SCC 745). Learned counsel also argued that the Single
Judge completely failed to notice that even if it were assumed
that reserved category candidate (SC/ST/OBC) could be allowed
to participate after having been unsuccessful in the draw of lots
held for that category and permitted to take their second chance
in the general category, those candidates, who were given the
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:40 AM)
(17 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018]
benefit of age relaxation could not be permitted to such a second
chance.
Gaurav Pradhan And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan And Ors. on 18 August, 2017
28. Thus, Gaurav Pradhan, Vikas Sankhala (supra) and
Dilipbhai (supra) have all dealt with the issue of whether
reserved category candidates who avail some concession (for
belonging to such reserved categories) should be granted the
benefit of "migration" to the general category vacancies. It could
be argued that each depended on the circulars issued by the
concerned governments, (i.e. States of Gujarat and Rajasthan),
and the court went by the interpretation of the instructions and
contents of those circulars. Yet, in both Gaurav Pradhan and Vikas
Sankhla, (both of which dealt with recruitments relatable to the
State of Rajasthan), the view expressed was that if a reserved
(ST/SC or OBC) category candidate availed of age relaxation, she
or he could not be "migrated" to the general category, in the
event of better performance on merit. This was underlined in
Gaurav Pradhan:
Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana vs Gujrat Public Service Commission And ... on 4 July, 2019
28. Thus, Gaurav Pradhan, Vikas Sankhala (supra) and
Dilipbhai (supra) have all dealt with the issue of whether
reserved category candidates who avail some concession (for
belonging to such reserved categories) should be granted the
benefit of "migration" to the general category vacancies. It could
be argued that each depended on the circulars issued by the
concerned governments, (i.e. States of Gujarat and Rajasthan),
and the court went by the interpretation of the instructions and
contents of those circulars. Yet, in both Gaurav Pradhan and Vikas
Sankhla, (both of which dealt with recruitments relatable to the
State of Rajasthan), the view expressed was that if a reserved
(ST/SC or OBC) category candidate availed of age relaxation, she
or he could not be "migrated" to the general category, in the
event of better performance on merit. This was underlined in
Gaurav Pradhan:
Vikas Sankhala & Ors Etc vs Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors Etc on 18 October, 2016
27. This issue had been earlier dealt with by another decision of
the Supreme Court in Vikas Sankhala & Ors. vs. Vikas Kumar
Agarwal and Ors 2017 (1) SCC 750. The court had then observed
as follows:
Shankarsan Dash vs Union Of India on 30 April, 1991
32. Keeping the principle enunciated in Dash (supra), it is
evident from the facts in the present set of appeals that the
recruitments, which were initiated in 2012, were bogged down by
litigation; the earmarking of vacancies, the lottery system,
allegations of introduction of the lottery system mid-stream,
increase in the number of vacancies, etc became the subject
matter of multiple writ petitions which led to court interventions
on about five occasions. The incomplete recruitment, (incomplete
because some vacancies had been filled up but in regard to others
either the process had not been completed, or the select lists not
fully operated), and vacancies accruing later, were all combined;
those who could not be appointed, due to the discontinuance of
the selection process (of 2012) were allowed to participate in the
fresh process; they were afforded age relaxation, apart from
those candidates who fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In these
circumstances, the State's decision to carry out the entire
exercise afresh, after combining the left-over vacancies (of 2012)
cannot be faulted. This contention, therefore, fails. Likewise, in
the opinion of the court, the petitioners in Ravindra have not
made out a cause for intervention; that names of some of them
were included in the select list, cannot be the basis for holding
the 2018 recruitment arbitrary; nor can they enforce any right, as
(Downloaded on 30/08/2019 at 01:49:40 AM)
(41 of 42) [SAW-1733/2018]
candidates selected in the 2012 recruitment process. Clearly, the
vacancies from that selection process could be clubbed with later
vacancies and made subject of a fresh recruitment process. No
rule or regulation, or binding norm which precluded the State
from holding a recruitment in respect of such combined vacancies
was shown to the court.
State Of Haryana vs Subash Chander Marwaha And Ors on 2 May, 1973
This correct position has been consistently followed by
this Court, and we do not find any discordant note in
the decisions in State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander
Marwaha and Ors. (1973) IILLJ 266 SC; Miss Neelima
Shangla v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1986] 3 SCR
785 and Jitendra Kumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab
and Ors. [1985] 1 SCR 899."