Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1421 (RAJ)

Dharmendra Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-08-10

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT Dinesh Mehta, J. - The petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions challenging the order dated 12.06.2017 (Annex.4), whereby they have been ousted from the select list, pursuant to the selection of Mehra Ram and Dharamraj (petitioners in SB Civil Writ Petition No.5850/2020), which was done consequent to revision of result and publication of revised merit list dated 02.05.2013. 2. Mr. Vinay Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners, argued that petitioners herein were given appointment vide order dated 11.07.2016 (Annex.3), whereafter on account of review/revision of result they have been thrown out of the employment for no fault of theirs. 3. It was argued by Mr. Jain that the petitioners had neither concealed any fact nor misled the respondents and if there was any error or fault, the same was attributable to the respondents, hence, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to continue in the service. 4. It was also pointed out by Mr. Jain that this Court had protected the petitioners' right by way of interim order dated 22.06.2017 passed in the instant writ petition and they have been continuing with the respondents for more than five years. 5. Apprehending that on account of acceptance of writ petition filed by Mehra Ram, one of two petitioners has to go out he prayed that rights and service of the petitioners, who have served the respondents for more than five years, be protected. 6. He alternatively prayed that the respondents be directed to accommodate the petitioners, if any vacant position exists. 7. In support of the aforesaid arguments, Mr. Jain relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Chhasttisgarh & Ors., (2013) 14 SCC 494 and the judgment dated 24.04.2018 passed by this Court in the case of Laxman Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Raajsthan & Ors. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.11751/2017) to submit that it would be inequitable to terminate a candidate, who has served the respondents for more than five years. 8. Mr. Anil Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that by order of even date this Court had allowed Writ Petition No.5850/2020 qua petitioner No.1 Mehra Ram and if he is to be given appointment, one of the petitioners, whosoever is lower in merit will have to go out. 9. Mr. 8. Mr. Anil Bissa, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that by order of even date this Court had allowed Writ Petition No.5850/2020 qua petitioner No.1 Mehra Ram and if he is to be given appointment, one of the petitioners, whosoever is lower in merit will have to go out. 9. Mr. Bissa submitted that though the respondents have terminated the petitioners' services on 12.06.2017 but they are continuing pursuant to interim order passed by this Court. Now, since Mehra Ram's writ petition has been allowed, services of one of the petitioners, who is lower in merit, will have to be terminated and order dated 12.06.2017 is legal and valid. 10. Indisputably, vide order dated 12.06.2017 petitioners were terminated by respondents on account of inclusion of Mehra Ram and Dharma Raj. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the fact that the petitioners herein have served the respondents for more than five years (may be because of the interim order passed in their favour), this Court is of the view that by this time the petitioners have become over-age and are not in position to seek appointment and have lost practicality all available avenues. 12. In the opinion of this Court, no sweeping order or direction can be issued protecting service of the petitioners. Judgment in the case of Vikas Pratap (supra) has been passed by Hon'ble the Apex Court in order to do substantial justice, in exercise of plenary power vested in it by virtue of Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Such powers are not available to this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The writ petitions are, therefore, disposed of with direction to the respondents not to disturb the candidate, who is higher in merit out of petitioners (Dharmendra Singh and Mahendra Singh), he be retained qua the vacancy arising due to rejection of candidature of Mr. Dharmraj Choudhary, obviously taking into account the reservation and other eligibility criteria. 14. So far as the second candidate, who is lower in merit, is concerned, he be accommodated by the respondents, if a vacant position exists in his category. 15. Needful be done within a period eight weeks. 16. Stay applications are also disposed of.