Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 2077 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Vinod Kumar Sharma

2018-10-09

GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. Application nos.78252/18, 78422/18, 79111/18, 79419/2018 seeking leave to file SAW Nos.1267/18, 1274/18, 1285/18 and 1291/18 respectively are allowed. 2. All these appeals have been filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.10.2018 whereby the final result of RAS and RTS Recruitment Examination-2012 declared on 17.7.2015 has been set aside for the reason of non-inclusion of 14 unfilled vacancies of the departmental candidates under the Rajasthan Excise Subordinate Service. 3. We have heard Dr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for State, Shri A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel for appellants, Shri Lokesh Sharma, Shri Puneet Singhvi, Shri Ashwani Jaiman, Shri Pushpendra Singh Tanwar on behalf of Shri Shobhit Tiwari for the appellants and Shri Vigyan Shah, Shri M.F. Beg and Shri Banwari Lal Sharma for the respondents. Dr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General for State submitted that there were total 14 vacancies advertised for RAS and RTS Recruitment Examination for the year 2012. In these 14 vacancies, 2 vacancies pertained to the previous year and therefore they would lapse and would not be carried forward. 4. However, 2 posts of DC category were already advertised in corrigendum advertisement dated 22.6.2017, due to which the total would become 14 with the addition of 12 posts coming from 2012 examination. It is contended that out of all the three writ petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9596/2017 namely; Prem Narayan Sharma, Ajay Kumar Sharma and Harish Kumar Sharma, Prem Narayan Sharma did not pass the 2016 examination, but Ajay Kumar Sharma and Harish Kumar Sharma have passed the 2016 examination. Of them, Harish Kumar Sharma has already been given appointment on the post of Excise Inspector with regard to vacancy of the year 2013. However, with regard to writ petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19170/17 and 1538/18, namely; Jitendra Singh Rathore, Ranu Singh and Vinod Kumar Sharma, passed the examination of 2016 and qualified for appointment. One Ashutosh Kaushik, who has not joined as petitioner in any of the three writ petitions, was also successful in 2016 examination. Thus Ajay Kumar Sharma, Jitendra Singh Rathore, Ranu Singh, Vinod Kumar Sharma and Ashutosh Kaushik are such five departmental (Excise Department) candidates, who were successful in 2016 examination, have qualified for appointment. After adjusting them, only 9 more posts of DC quota (Excise Department) remain to be notified. 5. Thus Ajay Kumar Sharma, Jitendra Singh Rathore, Ranu Singh, Vinod Kumar Sharma and Ashutosh Kaushik are such five departmental (Excise Department) candidates, who were successful in 2016 examination, have qualified for appointment. After adjusting them, only 9 more posts of DC quota (Excise Department) remain to be notified. 5. Shri Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the writ petitioners submitted that the RPSC in any case is holding the special Mains examination for RAS & RTS Direct Recruitment Examination, 2016 for certain candidates in compliance of the judgment of Single Bench in Mansi Tiwari vs. State & Another., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5658/2017 dated 26.8.2017 as upheld by the division bench of this Court in SAW No.1317/17, as per the stand taken by them before the Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.22134/2018 noted in the order dated 27.8.2018. He therefore submits that the candidates 15 times the number of vacancies, i.e. 9 x 15 (135), from the Excise Department can be permitted to appear in such special mains examination to give a quietus to the controversy in the present case. 6. Shri A.K. Sharma and Dr. Abhinav Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General submit that the operative part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge, whereby the entire result has been set aside, is required to be set aside with the modification that result quo the other candidates, who have qualified the written examination is saved. After result of the special mains examination that may now be held pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Mansi Tiwari, and for 9 posts of DC category, the merit may be allowed to be revised only to that limited extent for the purpose of appointments on the basis of RAS and RTS Recruitment Examination-2012. 7. The course of action jointly suggested by the parties commends to us as it would save huge efforts and energy put in the entire process of recruitment, which would be in the interest of all concerned. 8. 7. The course of action jointly suggested by the parties commends to us as it would save huge efforts and energy put in the entire process of recruitment, which would be in the interest of all concerned. 8. We therefore set aside the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.10.2018 and instead direct that result may be revised only to the extent of inclusion of above referred to five candidates, who have already qualified the examination of 2016 and Others who may now qualify the special mains examination against 9 posts of DC category of Excise Department that may be held in compliance of the judgment of this Court in Mansi Tiwari, supra. The respondents-State Government and RPSC may accordingly revise the merit and proceed to make appointments on that basis. 9. The RPSC is directed to conduct the aforesaid special mains examination for RAS & RTS Direct Recruitment Examination, 2016 within one month from today so as to complete the process of selection. 10. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 11. A copy of this judgment be placed in each connected matter.