Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1362 (RAJ)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of Rajasthan

2016-09-16

M.N.BHANDARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Mr. M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By this writ petition, a direction is sought for appointment of the petitioners on the post of Sub Inspector, Police (AP). 2. It is a case where selection to the post of Platoon Commander and Sub Inspector, Police (AP) was conducted in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09th April, 2007. After the selection, result was declared followed by appointments. A writ petition bearing SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3705/2009 titled as Ram Narayan Bhanwareya and Ors. v. State & Ors. was filed to challenge the application of scalling of raw marks. Due to scalling, marks of the candidates were increased or decreased changing the merit list earlier prepared based on raw marks. The aforesaid writ petition was decided vide order dated 20th September, 2011 at Principal Seat, Jodhpur. The Court had given following directions in the said case, which are reproduced hereunder for ready reference : “Accordingly, these petitions for writ are accepted. The formulate of scaling applied by the respondent while determining merit of the candidates, who faced Sub-Inspector Police Combined Competition Examination, 2007 is declared illegal. However, this declaration shall not have any adverse effect to the process of selection already taken place and completed. The candidature of the petitioners shall be considered for appointments to the post of Sub-Inspector against the future vacancies and if any of the petitioner is having higher raw marks then the raw-marks in written examination, the last selected candidate as a consequent to the Examination of 2007, his/her candidature would be considered for appointment in his own category, and on consideration, if he/she stands In merit, appointment be accorded to him/her on the post concerned on or before 1.12.2011. The petitioners if selected, they shall be treated as the recruits against the vacancy pertaining to that the advertisement dated 9.4.2007 relates and their seniority shall be reckoned accordingly. The relief granted in these petitions for writ shall remain confined to the petitioners only.” 3. In pursuance of the judgment aforesaid, few other writ petitions were filed immediately thereupon and had been covered by the judgment in the case of Ram Narayan Bhanwareya & Ors. (supra). In pursuance of the judgment, the petitioners were given appointment on the post of Platoon Commander but not on the post of Sub Inspector, Police (AP). In pursuance of the judgment aforesaid, few other writ petitions were filed immediately thereupon and had been covered by the judgment in the case of Ram Narayan Bhanwareya & Ors. (supra). In pursuance of the judgment, the petitioners were given appointment on the post of Platoon Commander but not on the post of Sub Inspector, Police (AP). The petitioners are now claiming their appointment on the post of Sub Inspector, Police (AP) as their raw marks are more than a candidate, namely, Anil Dev Kalla. 4. As per the directions given in the case of Ram Narayan Bhanwareya & Ors. (supra), the respondents were required to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment against future vacancies, if any of the petitioners was having higher raw marks in written test to the candidate given appointment in his own category. The petitioners seniority was to be reckoned accordingly. The relief was confined to the petitioners only and, accordingly they were appointed on the post of Platoon Commander vide order dated 10th July, 2013. The petitioners Kheta Ram and Mahaveer Sharma were already in service as had been appointed on the post of Platoon Commander in RAC earlier itself thus continued on the said post, whereas, others were appointed on the said post vide order dated 12th July, 2013. It has been alleged that petitioners have secured higher raw marks to those appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector yet were given appointment or the post of Platoon Commander. 5. A reference of judgment in the case of Anil Dev Kalla v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 6059/2013 decided on 10th February, 2015 has been given. The petitioner Anil Dev Kalla has secured less marks than the petitioners. He was appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector. The respondents, however, passed an order on 05th December, 2012 to appoint those on the post of Platoon Commander, who had possessed less raw marks than the petitioners. It includes Anil Dev Kalla. The order was, however, not given effect to and, accordingly Anil Dev Kalla and others were allowed to continue on the post of Sub-Inspector. On 22nd March, 2013, another order was passed to appoint Anil Dev Kalla on the post of Platoon Commander. A challenge to the order was maded. The High Court set aside the order passed against Anil Dev Kalla and others. On 22nd March, 2013, another order was passed to appoint Anil Dev Kalla on the post of Platoon Commander. A challenge to the order was maded. The High Court set aside the order passed against Anil Dev Kalla and others. The first writ petition for it was decided in the case of Jai Kishan Soni v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3905/2013 vide order dated 22nd April, 2014. Mr. Jai Kishan Soni was accordingly appointed on the post of Sub-Inspector (AP) as the judgment in the case of Ram Nararyan Bhanwareya & Ors. (supra) was not to effect appointment of others. Subsequently, the writ petition of Anil Dev Kalla was also allowed. It was mainly in reference to the judgment in the case of Jai Kishan Soni. The petitioners, however, did not filed writ petition immediately thereupon when the order against Jai Kishan Soni was set aside on 22nd April, 2014. The writ petition has been filed when following the judgment in the case of Jai Kishan Soni, the writ petition of Anil Dev Kallam was decided. 6. In any case, the issue raised by the petitioners needs to be decided in reference to the judgment in their own case, which was passed after following the judgment in the case of Ram Narayan Bhanwareya & Ors. (supra). In the said case, a direction was given to consider the candidature d the petitioners for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector against future vacancies if the raw marks of the candidates appointed on the said post are less. In view of above, appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector cannot be made beyond the future vacancies and the writ petition is silent about existence of the future vacancies so as to give appointment to the petitioners on the post of Sub- Inspector as a consequence thereof. 7. The allegation in the writ petition is that Anil Dev Kalla, was given appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector but he is having less marks yet the petitioners were given appointment on the post of Platoon Commander. 8. The petitioners did not file a contempt petition immediately when they were appointed on the post of Platoon Commander or Anil Dev Kalla and Jai Kishan Soni were continued or maintained on the post of Sub-Inspector. 8. The petitioners did not file a contempt petition immediately when they were appointed on the post of Platoon Commander or Anil Dev Kalla and Jai Kishan Soni were continued or maintained on the post of Sub-Inspector. The petitioners did not even made a protest on their appointment alleged it to be in violation of the judgment in their own case. If the prayer of the petitioners is now accepted without knowing the existence of future vacancies then it would go against the judgment in the case of Ram Narayan Bhanwareya & Ors. (supra) as the appointments were to be made against future vacancies. The future vacancies should be till 01st December, 2011. It is for the reason that appointment was ordered to be given on or before 01th December, 2011. In absence of disclosure of future vacancies as on 01st December, 2011, the prayer made in this case cannot be accepted. It is-apart from the fact that I now change of the post after lapse of more than three years of the I appointment orders and without a protest may result in excess appointment Ion the post of Sub-Inspector (AP) and vacancies on the post of Platoon I Commander (RAC). 9. The petitioners are, however, given liberty to submit representation to the respondents to find out existence of vacanices and if vacancies were existing then to consider their case as per the direction given in the earlier litigation. In case of representation, the respondents are directed to consider and decide it within a period of three months from the date of its receipt along with copy of this order. With the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of.