Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2601 (RAJ)

Banwarilal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission

2022-10-14

ARUN BHANSALI

body2022
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3), whereby the petitioner has been debarred from appearing in the examinations conducted by the Commission permanently. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the petition that petitioner had appeared in the examinations-2013 for the post of Junior Accountant in the year 2015. The examination conducted was investigated by Special Operations Group (SOG) and a charge- sheet came to be filed in 2015 (Annex.2), wherein the investigation against the petitioner was kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. 3. On 3.2.2016, the respondent RPSC, without issuing any notice to the petitioner by observing that it was brought to the notice of the Commission that the petitioner has used unfair means and a charge-sheet has been filed, copy whereof has been forwarded to the RPSC, the Full Commission in its meeting dated 25.2.2016 has decided on debarred candidates like petitioner permanently and consequently, the petitioner is debarred permanently. 4. Whereafter, the SOG has filed supplementary charge-sheet in the year 2019, wherein also the investigation against the petitioner has been kept pending. 5. It is further indicated in the petition that since the passing of the order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3), the petitioner filled up application forms pertaining to various examinations four times and every time on account of passing of the order dated 2.3.2016, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that so far, charge-sheet against the petitioner has not been filed and in the two charge-sheets only investigation against the petitioner has been shown as pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C., despite passage of over 7 years, since the examinations were held in the year 2015. 7. Further submissions have been made that the order impugned dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3) was passed by indicating that a charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, which is factually incorrect and that before passing of the order impugned, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner and the nature of order which has been passed, is drastic in so far as the petitioner is concerned, inasmuch as he has been debarred forever. 8. 8. Further submissions have been made that similar nature of orders, which were passed qua the other candidates have already been quashed and set aside by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Renu Gupta v. RPSC Ajmer : SBCWP No. 17128/2015 decided on 12/13.04.2017 at Jaipur Bench, which has been followed in SBCWP No.10921/2016 : Sharwan Kumar Bishnoi v. RPSC, Ajmer decided on 27.9.2022 and, therefore, the order impugned dated 2.3.2016 qua the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside. 9. Submissions have also been made that petitioner has applied for the post of School Lecturer (School Education) and the examinations are scheduled to be held tomorrow and, therefore, RPSC be directed to issue admit-card to the petitioner and permit him to appear in the examination. 10. RPSC appeared on caveat, copy of the petition was supplied and reply to the petition has been filed. 11. Learned AG made submissions that irrespective of the fact that the claim made by the petitioner regarding similar nature matters having been decided by this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to relief as the petitioner has approached this Court with unexplained delay as the order was passed way back in the year 2016 and despite the fact that petitioner suffered rejection of his candidature four times in the past, he has chosen to question the validity of the order after passage of over 6 years and has filed the petition in the nick of moment, which petition deserves to be dismissed on that count alone. 12. Reliance has been placed on State of Orissa v. Mamata Mohanty : 2011 (3) SCC 436 . 13. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 14. The facts are not in dispute, wherein in the two charge- sheets filed by the SOG over a period of 7 years, no charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, rather the investigation has been kept pending under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. The order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3) as noticed hereinbefore, proceeds on the assumption that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, which is factually incorrect. 15. 15. Further this is also a fact that the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 2.3.2016 debarring him for life from appearing in any of the examinations to be conducted by the RPSC. Similar nature orders, which were passed qua other candidates without affording any opportunity of hearing came to be set aside by an exhaustive order in the case of Smt. Renu Gupta (supra) leaving it open for the RPSC to hold enquiry after affording opportunity of hearing to the candidates therein. 16. The only objection which has been raised in relation to the exercise of jurisdiction by this Court in the present case, despite the fact that the issue is squarely covered by order in the case of Smt. Renu Gupta (supra) is on the ground of delay on part of the petitioner. 17. The Supreme Court in the case of Mamata Mohanty (supra) came to the conclusion that the mere fact that in similar nature matters, relief has been granted by the Court cannot furnish proper explanation for delay and laches and a litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgments in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. 18. There is no dispute about the law as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, as noticed hereinbefore, the facts of the present case are too glaring for this Court to refuse exercise of jurisdiction merely on account of delay in approaching this Court. As noticed, the order has been passed with the assumption that the charge-sheet has been filed against the petitioner, which aspect is factually incorrect. In the two charge-sheets filed over a period of 7 years from the lodging of the FIR, the investigation against the petitioner remains pending and he has been debarred for life without affording any opportunity of hearing. Similarly placed candidates, even against whom charge-sheet infact was filed, have succeeded in getting the orders set aside and, therefore, it would be too unjust not to exercise jurisdiction in the present case and deprive the petitioner from appearing in the ensuing examination. 19. Similarly placed candidates, even against whom charge-sheet infact was filed, have succeeded in getting the orders set aside and, therefore, it would be too unjust not to exercise jurisdiction in the present case and deprive the petitioner from appearing in the ensuing examination. 19. It is true that the RPSC in permitting the petitioner in the exam scheduled tomorrow would be inconvenienced, however, as the circumstances of the case are such that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the RPSC must do the needful. 20. In view of the above discussions, the petition filed by the petitioner is allowed. The order dated 2.3.2016 (Annex.3) is quashed and set aside, the respondent RPSC is directed to issue the admit card to the petitioner for appearance in the examination for School Lecturer (School Education) Examination-2022 scheduled to be held tomorrow and permit him to appear in the examination. 21. It goes without saying that RPSC would be free to proceed afresh after following the principles of natural justice. 22. The order has been passed in the presence of counsel for the RPSC, though the copy will be issued today itself, the RPSC should not wait for the certified copy of the order, and do the needfu.