Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 711 (RAJ)

Amit Gujrati v. State of Rajasthan

2016-05-19

J.K.RANKA, M.N.BHANDARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : With the consent of the respective parties, the writ petition has been heard finally. 2. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the amendment in Rule 9 of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees Service) Rule of 2012 as notified on 23.01.2014. 3. Learned counsel submits that he need not to press the challenge to the amendment in rule, if the present writ petition is considered on the other issue. 4. It is submitted that the advertisement for appointment for the post of Safai Employees was issued on 25.05.2012. The amendment in the rule is subsequent to the advertisement thus if a direction is given to make recruitment in pursuance to the advertisement as per unamended provision, the petitioner is not required to press for the validity of the notification at this stage. It is submitted that when the advertisement was issued on 25.05.2012, the rule of game cannot be changed in the midst in the light of judgment of the Apex court in the case of K. Manjusree v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in (2008) 3 SCC 512 . Accordingly, this Court may consider the issue aforesaid at the first instance and we find substance that petitioner is not required to press the challenge to the notification dated 23.01.2014. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation has seriously contested the case & submits that by way of amendment in Rules vide notification dated 23.01.2014 one more criteria for selection on the post of 'Safai Employees' was added. It is by way of lottery system amongst the eligible candidates. The amendment aforesaid was made because in past it was a practise that the Municipal Corporation was making selection by the system of lottery. In any case, if challenge to the notification is not pressed at this stage, the corporation need not to make elaborate argument for challenge to the notification dated 23.01.2014. 6. Coming to the aforesaid issue, it is submitted that though advertisement was issued on 25.05.2012 for appointment on the post of 'Safai Employees' in the year 2011 but the appointment have not yet been made. The rules were amended during the intervening period thus should be applied. The Corporation be given liberty to make recruitment by evolving any of the criteria given under Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012, as amended. 7. The rules were amended during the intervening period thus should be applied. The Corporation be given liberty to make recruitment by evolving any of the criteria given under Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012, as amended. 7. We have considered rival submissions made by the counsel for the parties and perused the record. We are taking the first issue in reference to the advertisement dated 25.05.2012 when the post of 'Safai Employees' was advertised. It is admitted by both the parties that due to litigation, the recruitment could not be finalised as yet. The only question for our consideration is as to whether the amendment during the course of recruitment can have effect by changing the Rule of game in the midst of the recruitment. The issue aforesaid has been dealt by the Apex Court in the case of K. Manjusree (supra). The change of the rule of game in the midst of the recruitment is not permitted. A process of recruitment initiated in the year 2012 should be completed as per the rule then prevalent if the corporation decide to carry on the recruitment. It cannot be affected by the subsequent amendment as the rule of game cannot be changed in the midst of the recruitment. The view is supported by the judgment of the Apex court thus we are inclined to accept the prayer of the petitioner on the second issue. 8. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed limiting to the issue of recruitment as per the rule then existing when advertisement was issued if the Municipal Corporation, Jaipur want to proceed with the recruitment in reference to the aforesaid advertisement.