Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2819 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Indu Bala Kumawat

2019-11-08

DINESH MEHTA, SANGEET LODHA

body2019
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - I.A. Nos.1/2019 and 2/2019 1. These applications have been filed by the applicants, seeking their impleadment in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.1046/2018, which has been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 05.08.2019. 2. The applicants belong to SC/ST Category, who were admittedly not parties to the subject appeal, have moved the present applications, seeking their impleadment inter alia with a stand that while deciding the appeal (SAW No.1046/2018, State of Rajasthan Vs. Indu Bala Kumawat) on 01.06.2019, this Court has set aside the basic judgment and order dated 28.11.2017, passed by learned Single Judge in a bunch of petitions led by the case of Lalit Kumar Vs. UGC and Ors. (SBCWP No.7545/2017), hence they were required to be heard. 3. Indisputably, in the bunch of cases, which was decided by learned Single Judge vide a common judgment dated 28.11.2017, led by the case of Lalit Kumar, the case of Indu Bala Kumawat (CW No.7546/2017) was also tagged, heard and decided. 4. The applicants' contention is that said Indu Bala Kumawat was an O.B.C. Candidate; while delivering judgment dated 01.06.2019, the issue with respect to OBC Candidate alone was considered by the Division Bench. It has been indicated/ argued that since the Division Bench, while allowing the subject appeal, has reversed the judgment in Lalit Kumar's case, the applicants be impleaded as parties; the delay in filing the present review application be condoned and the review petition be heard on merit and/or a clarification be issued that the judgment dated 01.06.2019, rendered in the case of State Vs. Indu Bala Kumawat, is applicable only for the OBC Candidates and not on SC/ST Candidates or the other cases decided by learned Single Judge on 28.11.2017. It was also argued that Division Bench judgment under consideration is likely to affect the Single Judge's decision dated 28.11.2017, rendered in the case of Lalit Kumar (supra), and other cases in which the same has been followed particularly in the cases of candidates belonging to SC/ST. 5. Heard. 6. We are of the opinion that firstly the application seeking impleadment (under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure) in a decided case is not maintainable. Secondly, review petition at the instance of the applicants - who were not party to the proceedings, is also not maintainable. 7. 5. Heard. 6. We are of the opinion that firstly the application seeking impleadment (under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure) in a decided case is not maintainable. Secondly, review petition at the instance of the applicants - who were not party to the proceedings, is also not maintainable. 7. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, even if their review application is treated to be application seeking clarification, we find that the same is misconceived and liable to be dismissed on merit also. 8. While rendering the common judgment dated 28.11.2017, in the batch of cases, led by Lalit Kumar (supra), learned Single Judge had decided group of cases involving SC, ST and OBC Candidates and what in-principal has been decided, was, that since the UGC had given relaxation of 5% marks to the SC/ST Candidates, vide notification dated 11.07.2016 and the recruitment, which was initiated vide advertisement dated 12.01.2015 was underway, the benefit of such relaxation is to be given to all the candidates. Learned Single Judge has recorded such finding for all categories of students, namely, SC/ST and OBC and the principle has been made applicable to all. 9. While deciding the appeal in the case of State Vs. Indu Bala Kumawat on 01.06.2019, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (of which one of us was a Member), while narrating the facts, made reference of OBC Category, since the respondent in that case was an OBC Candidate. 10. However, the basic question, which has been determined or decided by the Division Bench in Indu Bala's case, is, that any subsequent rules providing for various amendments/relaxations in educational qualification and other criteria, cannot be made applicable to the recruitment, which has already begun, as the same would amount to changing the rules of the game after the game has begun. 11. True it is that certain observations made in the operative portion of the order, gives an impression that the said judgment is applicable to the OBC Candidates only, but a close and careful reading makes it clear that such observation was made considering the argument of learned counsel for the respondent, which can be gathered from a bare reading of para No.29 of the judgment of Indu Bala Kumawat (supra), which read thus: "We now proceed to delve upon the sheet anchor of the contentions of Mr. Beniwal that 'since the condition of the advertisement itself provided that the recruitment will be carried out on the basis of amended rules, the State/ University was obliged to extend the benefit of relaxation to the OBC Candidates'." 12. But what had been dealt with, delved upon and held is contained in following part of the judgment:- "24.There cannot be any quarrel about the correctness of the proposition that the Regulations issued by the University Grants Commission are applicable to all the State Government run colleges and the Universities and so also about the fact that the educational qualification as provided by the University Grants Commission are applicable to the subject recruitment. But the controversy at hands is entirely different. The core question which is/was involved for the Court's consideration is/was "whether relaxation of 5% marks which was notified on 11.07.2016 by virtue of amendment in the UGC Regulations, is applicable to the subject recruitment, which commenced on 12.01.2015, as a result of publication of the first advertisement." 25. It is settled canon of law that the eligibility conditions and educational qualifications are required to be reckoned as prevailing on the date of the advertisement. In some cases itmay however relate to a specific date mentioned in the advertisement or as per the last date of submitting application form, in tune with the relevant rules. 26. In the present case, the concerned clause of the advertisement dated 12.01.2015 unequivocally provides: "as laid down in Gazette of India, September, 18th 2010". The date of advertisement was 12.01.2015, whereas the last date of filling up application form was 27.02.2015 (which incidentally was extendedtill 31.03.2015). As such the educational qualification and other eligibility criteria prevailing on 12.01.2015 have to be taken into consideration." 13. It is pertinent to note that a Coordinate Bench, while deciding another appeal of the State, involving a SC Candidate (State of Rajasthan Vs. Gauri Shanker Jeengar, SAW No.675, dated 05.08.2019), repelled such argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent. Said appeal was disposed of (where the respondent was a SC Candidate) in light of judgment of Indu Bala Kumawat (supra). Gauri Shanker Jeengar, SAW No.675, dated 05.08.2019), repelled such argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondent. Said appeal was disposed of (where the respondent was a SC Candidate) in light of judgment of Indu Bala Kumawat (supra). It will not be out of place to reproduce relevant part of the Division Bench judgment dated 05.08.2019, which reads thus:- "It is argued on behalf of the writ petitioners (present respondents) that the observations made by the learned Single Judge were in the context of reservation for SC/ST and the persons with disability; however, they cannot be made applicable to OBC Candidates. This Court is of the opinion that there is no merit in the submission. The Court notices that the Division Bench as well as the Single Bench had looked at the notification; the Division Bench applied a uniform rule which is that any condition introduced after the commencement of the recruitment process would not be applicable for on-going selection. If the writ petitioner's arguments were to be accepted there would be two rules governing the same recruitment." 14. In view of the discussion aforesaid, we neither find the applications to be maintainable nor do we see any substance therein. 15. The applications, so also the review petition, is dismissed.