Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2688 (RAJ)

Ramakishan v. State Of Rajasthan

2022-11-02

REKHA BORANA

body2022
JUDGMENT Rekha Borana, J. - The matter comes upon second stay application. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties the writ petition itself has been heard finally. 2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer for a direction to recommend name of the petitioner for counselling for the post of Lecturer (School Education) (Hindi). 3. The brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.10.2015 for the post of Lecturer (Hindi), the petitioner applied and was declared successful. The petitioner was even granted appointment vide appointment letter dated 22.06.2017 and he joined on 30.06.2017 but after joining, the petitioner applied to be re-posted with his parent department and in pursuance to his said application, vide order dated 07.09.2017, he was relieved from the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and was re-posted on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II. 4. The case of the petitioner is that there was a condition in the appointment order of the petitioner that the said appointment would be subject to the decision in Civil Appeal No. 1464-1466/2017; State of Rajasthan v. Captain Gurvinder Singh & Ors. and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8857/2017; Arvind Kumar & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Because of the said condition, appointment of the petitioner was under a cloud and therefore, he, in terms of the rules for lien, requested to be re-posted with his parent department. Subsequently, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Civil Appeal Nos. 4695-4699 of 2018; Rishal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., while disposing of the appeals, passed certain directions. In pursuance to the said directions, complete result of the examination in question was revised and a fresh select list was issued by the RPSC. In pursuance to the said select list, the eligible candidates were called for counselling but name of the petitioner did not find place in the said select list and therefore, the present petition has been preferred with the prayer for his recommendation for counselling as well as posting on the post of Lecturer (Hindi). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was forced to give away his posting as Lecturer (Hindi) only because of the condition incorporated in the appointment order. Had the said condition not been there, he could have continued on his appointed post. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was forced to give away his posting as Lecturer (Hindi) only because of the condition incorporated in the appointment order. Had the said condition not been there, he could have continued on his appointed post. Now, as the complete result has been revised and all the persons who had not joined earlier have been given a fresh opportunity and have also been called for counselling, the petitioner is also entitled to be called for counselling and to be appointed if found eligible. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the petitioner is not similar to other candidates as the petitioner is the one who was selected and was even granted appointment. It was only on his own wish and application that he was relieved from the post of Lecturer (Hindi) and was re-posted with his parent department as Teacher Grade-III Level-II. The petitioner cannot now, after being relieved and having joined on the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II, claim re-appointment on the post which he had already resigned from. Learned counsel submitted that in terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court, result of only those candidates had been revised who had earlier not been selected. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, those candidates who had earlier been selected, their result was neither required to be revised nor they were to be disturbed. Learned counsel further submitted that firstly, the petitioner did not fall in the category of unselected candidates and secondly, he already having given up his appointment, cannot claim for re-appointment. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is admitted on record that the petitioner was selected after the declaration of result at the first instance and he was even accorded appointment at the relevant point of time. It was only at his own instance that the petitioner was relieved from his appointed post and was posted with his parent department. The said exercise of option was at his own will and under no duress. Once having exercised this option and having availed benefit of lien, the petitioner cannot claim that he may be re-appointed on the post from which he himself got relieved. The said exercise of option was at his own will and under no duress. Once having exercised this option and having availed benefit of lien, the petitioner cannot claim that he may be re-appointed on the post from which he himself got relieved. So far as the directions by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rishal (supra) are concerned, the same were as under: "24. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dispose of these appeals with the following directions: (1) The Rajasthan Public Service Commission is directed to revise the result of all the candidates including all the appellants on the basis of Report of the Expert Committee constituted in pursuance of our order dated 16.01.2018 and publish the revised result. (2) While carrying the above exercise the Commission need not revise the result of all those candidates whose names were included in the Select List earlier published. We having already pointed out that the appointments shall not be affected by this exercise, there is no necessity to revise their result. Thus, this exercise shall be undertaken excluding all the candidates who are included in the Select List. (3) The Commission shall also publish the cut off marks of the last selected candidates in the respective categories who were included in the Select List on the basis of which appointments have been made by the Commission. (4) On the basis of the revised result, those candidates who achieve equal or more marks in their respective categories shall be offered appointments against 1045 vacancies as has been mentioned by the Commission in paragraph 7 of the affidavit, noted above. (5) The entire exercise of revising the result and making recommendations for appointments shall be completed by the Commission within a period of three months from today. The State shall take necessary consequential steps thereafter." 9. A bare perusal of the above directions makes it clear that the complete exercise as directed was to be taken up by the Department excluding all the candidates who were earlier included in the select list. Meaning thereby the persons who had already been included in the earlier select list were not to be disturbed and even their appointments were not to be disturbed. Had the petitioner not applied to be relieved, his appointment would not have been disturbed by the respondent-department. Meaning thereby the persons who had already been included in the earlier select list were not to be disturbed and even their appointments were not to be disturbed. Had the petitioner not applied to be relieved, his appointment would not have been disturbed by the respondent-department. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had forcefully been sent to his parent department. 10. In the opinion of this Court the only ground raised by the petitioner that he had applied only because of the condition in the appointment order cannot held to be tenable as the Courts cannot come to the rescue of the persons who act only on the basis of presumptions and apprehensions. Here is a person who exercised his option only in apprehension that he might be affected by the condition in the appointment order and might loose his job. Any action taken in apprehension without any logical reason, cannot be protected by this Court. 11. In view of the above observations, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in the present petition and the same is therefore, dismissed. 12. Stay applications and all the pending applications stand disposed of.