Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2026 (RAJ)

Ramavtar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan

2019-07-23

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - Applications No.1154/2018, 1152/2018 & 1153/2018 in D.B. Special Appeals (Writ) No.1437/2018, 1438/2018 & 1446/2018 respectively:- Applications seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeals are allowed. The delay in filing the appeals is condoned. D.B. Special Appeals (Writ) No.1177/2018, 1437/2018, 1438/2018 & 1446/2018:- 1. All these appeals have been preferred against the order dated 31/07/2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing writ petitions of the appellants as well as the orders dated 04/09/2018 and 22/10/2018 whereby the respective review petitions were also dismissed. 2. The appellants had applied for appointment on the post of Patwari under the Patwari Direct Recruitment Exam-2015 conducted in terms of the advertisement dated 04/11/2015 and the corrigendum dated 30/11/2015. Vide corrigendum, the candidates were required to acquire the eligibility criteria before the date of preliminary examination. The candidature of the appellants was, therefore, rejected on the ground that they did not possess RS-CIT certificate on the date when they participated in the preliminary examination. The counsel for the appellants contended that the eligibility should have been considered on the date of conducting of the main written examination and not the date when the preliminary examination was held. 3. The learned Single Judge, relying on the judgment dated 01/11/2017 passed in a bunch of writ petitions which were decided by coordinate Bench with the lead case being SB Civil Writ Petition No.11309/2017 (Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors), rejected contention of the appellants and dismissed their writ petitions. 4. In Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra), the learned Single Judge examined scope of the rules and held as under:- "...In the instant case, the respondents-employer had initially notified that candidate must be possessing requisite eligibility and education qualification at the time of filling the application form, however, the same was extended by the corrigendum giving chance to candidates to acquire the eligibility upto the date of preliminary examination. The Court does not find any fault in such decision of the State Government." 5. It was further held in Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) as under:- "The law on the issue of considering the RS-CIT certificate as eligibility condition has also been decided in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.793/2017 (Dhuleshwar Dindor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected appeals, vide judgment dated 12.09.2017. It was further held in Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) as under:- "The law on the issue of considering the RS-CIT certificate as eligibility condition has also been decided in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.793/2017 (Dhuleshwar Dindor Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected appeals, vide judgment dated 12.09.2017. The Division Bench in the said judgment has considered that if a date by which educational qualifications have to be attained is notified, the same is required to be adhered to. The Division Bench has upheld the decision of the learned Single wherein it has been held that notwithstanding the merit position of the candidates, they cannot be offered appointment to the post of LDC on account of acquiring RS-CIT certificate much after the date when the appellants were called for document verification. The same view of Division Bench has also been followed by another Division Bench in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.1015/2017 (Sangeeta Soni Vs. State of Raj & Ors., decided on 03.10.2017" 6. The view expressed in Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) was reiterated by another coordinate Bench at Principal Seat in Ramdeen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.14458/2017) vide judgment dated 09/11/2017. 7. Intra-Court appeal against the judgment in Ramdeen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) was dismissed vide order dated 02/02/2018 holding as under:- "4. The date on which the appellants attained the necessary eligibility by acquiring RS-CIT certificate has not been pleaded, but concededly, is much after the date when the preliminary examination was held." 8. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that case of the appellants was not identical to the cases of Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) & Ramdeen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) and they were Ex-Servicemen and therefore, the appellants moved review petitions which have been dismissed without considering the said aspect. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. 10. On a specific query with regard to the date when the ExServicemen acquired necessary qualification, learned counsel for the appellants conceded at bar that the Ex-Servicemen actually acquired qualification equivalent to that of RS-CIT after the preliminary examination was conducted. It is to be noted that the preliminary examination was conducted on 13/02/2016. 10. On a specific query with regard to the date when the ExServicemen acquired necessary qualification, learned counsel for the appellants conceded at bar that the Ex-Servicemen actually acquired qualification equivalent to that of RS-CIT after the preliminary examination was conducted. It is to be noted that the preliminary examination was conducted on 13/02/2016. Thus, the case of the appellants cannot be distinguished from Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) & Ramdeen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra) as all of them also acquired RS-CIT certificate after the preliminary examination. The certificate was obtained after the cut-off date i.e. the date when the preliminary examination was conducted; therefore the issue is no more res-integra. 11. A further submission was urged by learned counsel for the appellants that as they have been working as Patwaris on the basis of interim orders passed by this Court, they acquired the requisite experience and qualification. 12. In the opinion of this Court, as the appointment of the appellants is in terms of the interim orders passed, no right or equity can be said to have been created in their favour as their appointments were made subject to final outcome of the petitions. The appellants' case cannot be distinguished from that of Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) & Ramdeen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra). The Division Bench has upheld the view taken by the Single Judge in Shivdutt Singh Rathore Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (supra) & Ramdeen & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (supra). Their case falls in the same category and accordingly, it is held that the appellants did not have the necessary eligibility on the date when the preliminary examination was held. 13. In the circumstances, the view taken by the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 31/07/2018, while dismissing writ petitions of the appellants and while dismissing their review petitions vide orders dated 04/09/2018 and 22/10/2018, does not warrant interference. The appellants are not entitled to any relief. 14. The appeals are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications are also dismissed.