Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1996 DIGILAW 1166 (RAJ)

Dr. Rajveer Arya v. State of Rajasthan

1996-10-10

ARUN MADAN

body1996
JUDGMENT 1. - I have heard learned counsel for the parties. In pursuance of the Order dated 30th September, 1996, the Section Officer from R.P.S.C. is present in the Court today and has brought the result of the petitioner in the sealed cover. 2. I have perused the result of the petitioner. The petitioner along with other candidates was interviewed by the R.P.S.C. on 30.12.1995 in respect of vacancies advertised by R.P.S.C. for the year 1990-91 in pursuance of the advertisement No. 8/91 in respect of which Corrigendum (dt. 1.5.1993) was issued. Petitioner secured 56 per cent in the interview and declared passed in the said test by the Commission. l am informed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the matters of R.P.S.C. v. Dr. Sudhir Bhandari and Ors. in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 533/94, decided on 8th May, 1995 and RPSC v. Rajendra Kumar Surekha and others in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 492/94, decided on 5th June, 1995 vide S.L.P. Nos. 12740-12741/95 have been upheld by the Apex Court. During the course of hearing the order passed by the Apex Court has been pursued. The Apex Court while disposing of the said S.L.P.'s passed the following order: "While considering the Commission will take into account the performance and service record of the applicants who are in Government service. Time for consideration extended by four weeks. In the event of the respondent No. l and 2 being selected, their seniority will have to be determined by the appropriate authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the rules. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs." 3. Keeping in view the observations of the learned single Judge as well as the learned D.B. of this Court, the Apex Court declined to interfere with the directions given by this Court in the above matters. 4. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. No costs." 3. Keeping in view the observations of the learned single Judge as well as the learned D.B. of this Court, the Apex Court declined to interfere with the directions given by this Court in the above matters. 4. It is thus clear from the order passed by the Apex Court that the Apex Court while disposing of the S.L.P's. of the appellant-R.P.S.C. directed that while considering the candidature of the respective candidates, who were eligible for being considered for appointment on the post of Assistant Professors against the vacancies for the year 1990-91, the Commission shall take into account the performance and service record of the petitioner along with other ad hoc appointees, who have rendered their services with the respondents for a period of 3 years or more. Keeping in view the observations of the learned Single Judge as well as the learned D.B. of this Court, which were subject-matter of challenge before the Supreme Court, it was further directed that in the event of the said candidates being selected, their seniority will have to be determined by the appropriate authority in accordance with the relevant provisions of the rules. The appeals were accordingly disposed of. 5. During the course of hearing Shri S.N. Kumawat, learned counsel for the respondent-R.P.S.C. has brought to the notice of this Court a subsequent order dated 15th July, 1996, passed by the Apex Court in the matter of R.P.S.C. v. Dr. Deepak Verma and another arising out of D.B. Civil Special Appeals Nos. 245/96 - judgment dated 13.5.1996, 250/96 - judgment dated 17.5.1996, 253/96 judgment dated 17.5.1996 and 254/96 - judgment dated 17.5.1996, wherein the Apex Court while issuing notice on the S.L.Ps and the miscellaneous petitions directed that in the meanwhile there will be interim stay of the operation of the impugned judgments of the High Court, which was subject matter of challenge before the Apex Court, in the matter of Deepak Verma and others v. R.P.S.C. as referred to above. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the orders passed by this court as well as the order passed by the Apex Court and the copy of the S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 12599-21602/96 in the matter of the R.P.S.C. v. Dr. Deepak Verma and others. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the orders passed by this court as well as the order passed by the Apex Court and the copy of the S.L.P.(Civil) Nos. 12599-21602/96 in the matter of the R.P.S.C. v. Dr. Deepak Verma and others. The perusal of the said Special Leave Petition reveals that the petitioner R.P.S.C. had again sought directions against the order of this High Court in respect of vacancies of 1994-95 and the challenge did not relate to the vacancies of the preceding year 1990-91, which are subject matter of challenge in the earlier writ petition as well as in the present writ petition of the petitioner. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the summoned record. Prima facie I am of the considered opinion that the services of the petitioner deserve to be regularised by the respondents since he fulfils the relevant criteria for selection as laid down by the R.P.S.C. in accordance with the rules. 8. Keeping in view the aforesaid decision of the Apex Court, respondents are accordingly directed to regularise the services of the petitioner w.e.f. the year 1990-91 and the petitioner will be entitled to all the consequential benefits as admissible to him in accordance with the rules. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******