Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 183 (RAJ)

Suman Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2016-02-01

AJAY RASTOGI, J.K.RANKA

body2016
JUDGMENT : This instant writ petition has been filed assailing the Notification dated 16.4.2010 and the amendment which was made in Schedule-I appended to the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service (Amendment) Rules, 2010 under the heading 'Section F. General Teachers’ (i-b), which reads as under:- "(i-b) Graduate or equivalent examination with Zoology, Botany and Chemistry as optional subjects for the post mentioned at serial number 4 in column number 2,..." 2. The bone of contention of the petitioner is that the amendment was made after issuance of advertisement dated 8.8.2008 and that could not have been taken note of to non suit the candidates like the present petitioner from participation in the selection process and this according to him changes the rule of the game which is not permissible in the eye of law. 3. It is brought to our notice that the Division Bench of this court examined the validity of self same Notification, of which we have made a reference, and dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 25.8.2011 before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3836/2011 along with 10 other writ petitions. The matter further travelled to the Apex Court and by order dated 23.5.2013 in Civil Appeal No. 4706/2013, while keeping the issue open for consideration in an appropriate proceeding, it observed as under: "In the facts and circumstances arising in these cases, as the rules stood amended during the continuation of the process of selection, those persons who had appeared in the examination and had been found eligible on the date of issuance of advertising the vacancies, and stood qualified, deserve to be appointed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, this relief is restricted only to those who had approached this Court and to those who had approached the High Court before the date of decision in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3836/2011. We further clarify that if any person had not taken the examination or failed to qualify the written examination, his case shall not be considered. With these directions, all the appeals stand disposed of. However, all legal issues involved in these appeals are left open." 4. We further clarify that if any person had not taken the examination or failed to qualify the written examination, his case shall not be considered. With these directions, all the appeals stand disposed of. However, all legal issues involved in these appeals are left open." 4. The order of Apex Court, which we have referred to supra, clearly indicates that only such of the candidates who have filed their writ petitions on or before the date of judgment of Division Bench of this court dated 25.8.2011, could be considered to participate in the selection process, and made eligible pursuant to advertisement dated 8.8.2008. Indisputably the present petition has been filed by the writ petitioner on 16.9.2014, and taking note of the deadline as referred to by the Apex Court in its order of which we have made a reference, the benefit could not be extended to the present petitioner. 5. The contention of the petitioner is that his name was in the reserved list which was published on 3.11.2011 and his candidature was rejected on 21.2.2012, and the cause of action accrued to him only thereafter. As such the dead line fixed by the Apex Court while disposing of the batch of civil appeals referred may not come in way and at-least he should be considered to be visible and be considered for appointment on the basis of his selection made pursuant to advertisement dated 8.8.2008. 6. We do not find any substance in the submission for the reason that when the Division Bench of this court repelled the contention which the petitioner has advanced in the instant writ petition vide judgment dated 25.8.2011, and the Apex Court in the Civil Appeal preferred against the judgment of the Division Bench of this court have permitted such of the candidates to be eligible who had approached on or before passing of the judgment by the Division Bench of this court on 25.8.2011, and that being so the filing of a writ petition at a later stage would not consider in giving him a benefit of eligibility as prayed for. It is brought to our notice that the self same controversy at a later stage also came to be examined by the Division Bench of this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12756/2013 Kaushalya v. State of Rajasthan & Others, and contention was repelled vide order dated 11.6.2014. 7. It is brought to our notice that the self same controversy at a later stage also came to be examined by the Division Bench of this court in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12756/2013 Kaushalya v. State of Rajasthan & Others, and contention was repelled vide order dated 11.6.2014. 7. In the light of order of the Apex Court and what has been observed by the Division Bench of this court dated 11.6.2014, we do not find substance to grant relief as prayed for. The instant petition being devoid of merit accordingly dismissed.