Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1470 (RAJ)

Balveer Singh v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-05-07

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak, Gram Panchayat Mal Ka Khera, District Bhilwara and further with a prayer for removal of respondent No. 6 - Bhawani Singh from the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that in pursuance to the circular dated 08.11.2016, the process for recruitment of Gram Panchayat Sahayak was taken up. The advertisement dated 01.02.2017 was issued for the purpose and in pursuance to the same, the petitioner being qualified, applied for the same. After the process of selection, the School Development and Management Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'SDMC') recommended the names of four candidates in which one name was of the petitioner. But in contravention to the same, a new list recommending the names of other four candidates deleting the name of the petitioner and adding the name of respondent No. 6 - Bhawani Singh was recommended and forwarded by a single Authority. In pursuance to the recommendation, the appointment to the said candidates had also been afforded and respondent No. 6 - Bhawani Singh is since then working on the said post. 3. It has been submitted on record that the name of Bhawani Singh had not been recommended by the SDMC and totally in contravention to the recommendation of the SDMC, later on the recommendation was changed solely by the Principal of the Government School, Mal Ka Khera, Panchayat Samiti, Bijoliya. The said change in the list of candidates was neither approved by the SDMC nor was it ever laid before the Committee for approval. It was a sole act of the Principal and therefore, was totally in contravention to the guidelines as prayed. 4. Per contra, counsel for the private respondent No. 6 submitted that his name had been recommended because of the reason that in the earlier list of four candidates, none of the candidates had any experience and therefore, it was opined that at least one candidate having the experience of the post should be afforded appointment. Therefore, as the respondent had an experience of more than five years, was preferred and afforded appointment. He further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as he did not stand in the merit list. Therefore, as the respondent had an experience of more than five years, was preferred and afforded appointment. He further submitted that even otherwise, the petitioner was not eligible for appointment as he did not stand in the merit list. The name of the petitioner had been recommended only because a member of the Committee was his uncle. Counsel also pointed out the discrepancies occurred in the complete selection process. It has, therefore, been averred that the recommendation and appointment of respondent No. 6 was perfectly valid in the given facts and circumstances. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. A bare perusal of the record makes it crystal clear that the complete recruitment process in question comprises of grave irregularities and nepotism. It was specifically the condition of the guidelines that the merit list would be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidates in the Sr. Secondary Examination. But, interviews also seems to have been conducted by the SDMC. When the selection was to be made on the basis of the marks obtained in the Sr. Secondary Examination, what was the occasion for conducting the interviews and granting marks for the same is not clear and the same smells of clear mala fides. 7. The merit list which was prepared and placed on record along with the reply by the private respondent No. 6 reveals that the petitioner Balveer Singh secured 55.5% of marks and respondent No. 6 obtained 67.8% of marks. A perusal of the merit list shows that out of total 43 candidates, at least 5 candidates were higher in merit to respondent No. 6 and more than 23 candidates were higher in merit to the petitioner. Despite more meritorious candidates being available, the petitioner and respondent No. 6 had been selected without any logical reason. The documents as placed on record by the private respondent No. 6 and not refuted by the petitioner make it clear that both the candidates selected in the recruitment process did not stand in merit and those standing higher in merit were not selected. A perusal of the record also makes it clear that the petitioner is a close relative of one of the members of the Committee and therefore, has been awarded the full marks by all the members in the interview too. 8. A perusal of the record also makes it clear that the petitioner is a close relative of one of the members of the Committee and therefore, has been awarded the full marks by all the members in the interview too. 8. In view of the fact clear on record that neither the petitioner nor the respondent No. 6 stood in merit, the present writ petition of the petitioner deserves to be partly allowed. Prayer No. C of the writ petition is allowed. The appointment of private respondent No. 6 - Bhawani Singh on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak being wholly invalid, is quashed. However, he would be entitled to the salary from the date of his appointment till the date of the present order. 9. So far as the petitioner is concerned, he also being not standing in merit, deserves no indulgence in his favour and therefore, the other reliefs as prayed for cannot be granted. 10. With the above observations, the present writ petition is partly allowed. 11. All the pending applications also stand disposed of.