Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1708 (RAJ)

Norta Ram v. State Of Rajasthan

2021-09-14

DINESH MEHTA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners have approached this Court for the following reliefs: "A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the list dated 28.08.2021 (Annex.-5) of Non-Joiners (Already joined in Direct Recruitment Teacher Grade III 2018) providing opportunity to exercise option and waiting List dated 08.09.2021 (Annex.-7) issued by the respondents for Teacher Grade III Level II-2016 (Revised) for election/Joining/Up to the extent of allocation of posting District in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.09.2017 (Annex.-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners in the waiting list dated 08.09.2021 (Annex-7) issued on account of non joiners and any order denying the allocation of nearby posting District to the petitioners on the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) English as per merit and category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.09.2017 (Annex-1) may kindly be quashed and set aside. C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners in process of waiting list dated 08.09.2021 (Annex-7) and allot the nearby posting District to the petitioners as per their merit number, category and as the preferences submitted by them in the application form/at the time of document verification for the post of Teacher Grade-III (Level-II) English pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.09.2017 (Annex-1). D. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. E. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs." 2. Mr. Deora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argues that the respondents have decided to operate waiting list and consequent thereto the persons less meritorious than them, would be given posting at the places which the petitioners had opted. 3. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, the posts, which fell vacant on account of non-joining or rejection of the candidature of the candidates, who at the relevant time were ahead of the petitioner in the merit list, are now being filled in by operating waiting list. He raises a grievance that the new incumbents less meritorious candidates would be given posting at such places without making any effort to first accommodate the petitioners. 4. Mr. He raises a grievance that the new incumbents less meritorious candidates would be given posting at such places without making any effort to first accommodate the petitioners. 4. Mr. Chandak, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that the exercise is being undertaken by the respondents in view of the Division Bench judgment rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Urmila Devi. He submits that at the first instance while operating the reserve/waiting list, the posting has to be given qua the unfilled/vacant posts and the petitioners, at this stage, cannot stall such process simply impelled by their vested interest of getting posting. 5. In the opinion of this Court, the respondents cannot be said to be at fault in operating waiting/reserve list and filling up the vacant posts, which have remained unfilled. 6. The petitioners, who are serving the respondents and have joined at the particular place cannot raise the grievance at this stage. Their vested and that too, trivial interests cannot thwart the process of recruitment by creating unnecessary hurdles in the appointments being given to the unemployed persons, who are waiting in queue. 7. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as premature. 8. Needless to observe that once the process is over and all the posts are filled, the respondents would be required to undertake a fresh exercise of counseling/providing posting to all the candidates on the basis of categorywise and meritwise choice to be taken from the candidates appointed in the recruitment of 2016 in accordance with law. 9. The petitioners will be free to approach this Court at appropriate stage, if the needful is not done. 10. The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.