Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1533 (RAJ)

Arvind S/o Shri Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan

2025-09-04

REKHA BORANA

body2025
Order : REKHA BORANA, J. 1. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer that the petitioners be afforded appointment on the post of Teacher Level-II for subject Social Studies in pursuance to advertisement dated 16.12.2022 (Annexure-1) issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur. 2. The case of the petitioners is that they participated in the recruitment process in pursuance to advertisement dated 16.12.2022 and found place in the provisional select list. The petitioners were called for document verification and after being finally selected, were allotted respective schools. However, they were permitted to join and hence, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Reply to the writ petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Elementary Education Department with a submission that the appointment of the petitioners was kept pending in view of the pending report from the Special Operations Group (SOG) which had undertaken an inquiry pertaining to the authenticity of the sports certificates submitted by the petitioners. 4. It has been submitted that vide communication dated 27.09.2023, it was observed by the competent authority that the sports certificates as submitted by the petitioners were not satisfactorily verified. Further, the SOG had sought details of the petitioners which have been forwarded by the respondent- Department but then, no further communication has been made by the SOG and hence, no further action can be taken by the respondent-Department. 5. Vide order dated 21.05.2025, this Court observed and directed as under: “5. Counsels shall also submit about the present status of the verification of the documents/certificate of the petitioners. If no steps have been taken by the State or the RSSB till date to get the same verified, it be positively done by the next date and the report whatsoever be filed along with the reply.” 6. On 05.08.2025, after hearing the counsels, Court directed learned counsel Mr. Raj Singh Bhati who appeared for SOG, to file a specific report regarding the result of the investigation as conducted by SOG qua the certificates of the present petitioners. On that date, the Court specifically observed that if no report is filed by the next date, the matter would be heard on its own merit. 7. Today, learned counsel Mr. Ritu Singh Bhati submits that although a communication has been made/sent to the SOG for the present status but then, the same has not been responded to till date. On that date, the Court specifically observed that if no report is filed by the next date, the matter would be heard on its own merit. 7. Today, learned counsel Mr. Ritu Singh Bhati submits that although a communication has been made/sent to the SOG for the present status but then, the same has not been responded to till date. He further submits that so far as the petitioners are concerned, admittedly, they have not even been served with any notice by the SOG yet. He submits that the petitioners would be called upon in due time for verification of their documents by the SOG. 8. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the recruitment in question pertains to year 2022 and even the final select list was issued in the year 2024. The appropriate orders for allotment of schools to the petitioners were also passed in the year 2024. But till date, the petitioners have not been permitted to join on the pretext of the inquiry been conducted by the SOG He submits that no notice whatsoever, has been served on the petitioners till date by the SOG calling upon to file their defence. 9. On merit, counsel submits that the petitioners submitted a certificate issued by the Association of Indian Universities qua a tournament held at Jagan Nath University, Jaipur from 14.01.2023 to 17.01.2023 for the sport of “Tug of War”. The said certificate has been opined by the respondents to be doubtful and not verified whereas certain other candidates who had submitted a certificate of the same tournament and of the same date, have been afforded appointment. To be specific, counsel placed reliance on the appointment of one candidate namely Vikas S/o Bhanwar Lal, who found place at Sr. No.13 in the list forwarded vide communication dated 09.05.2025 by the department with a direction for affording appointment. Communication dated 09.05.2025 is taken on record. 10. Counsel for the petitioners further submits that so far as the merit of the petitioners is concerned, they admittedly stand higher in merit and therefore only found place in the select list and have even been awarded the respective schools. 11. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that till the veracity of the sports certificates as submitted by the petitioners is finally concluded, the petitioners do not deserve to be permitted to be appointed. 11. Per contra learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that till the veracity of the sports certificates as submitted by the petitioners is finally concluded, the petitioners do not deserve to be permitted to be appointed. Counsel further submits that till the SOG reaches to a final conclusion, the petitioners should not be permitted to join. 12. Heard the counsels. Perused the record. 13. The sole controversy is whether the sports certificates as submitted by the petitioners are valid or not. 14. A bare perusal of communication dated 09.05.2025 as placed on record by counsel for the petitioners today, reflects that vide the said communication, a list of 16 candidates was forwarded for affording appointment to them. The candidates standing at Sr. No.13, namely Vikas Son of Bhanwar Lal and that at Sr. No.10 Kheem Dan Son of Takhat Dan clearly reflect to have submitted their sports certificate qua a tournament organized by Jagan Nath University, Jaipur from 14.01.2023 to 17.01.2023. The certificates also reflect to have been issued by the Association of Indian University qua the sport of “Tug of War”. Further, both of them have even been reflected to be the students of Nirwan University, Jaipur. 15. A bare perusal of sports certificates of the present petitioners as annexed alongwith the present writ petition reflect the same to be of the same sport, issued by the same association, conducted by the same university on the same dates that is 14.01.2023 to 17.01.2023. Furthermore, the present petitioners too were the students of the same University, that is, Nirwan University, Jaipur. 16. In view of the above, it is clear on record that the respondent-Authorities have acted discriminatorily. When one sports certificate of the same nature qua some candidates has been accepted by the respondent-Authorities to be genuine, how a similar certificate qua the other candidates could be held to be suspicious? 17. Further, admittedly the SOG has not even served any notice on the petitioners yet. Despite the specific directions of this Court, no response has been filed on behalf of the SOG till date. 18. The petitioners who had been selected after a regular recruitment process almost a year ago, cannot be left in lurch because of the delay either on part of the respondent-Authorities or on part of SOG. 19. In view of the above analysis, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. 18. The petitioners who had been selected after a regular recruitment process almost a year ago, cannot be left in lurch because of the delay either on part of the respondent-Authorities or on part of SOG. 19. In view of the above analysis, the present writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The respondent-Authorities are hereby directed to permit the petitioners to join at their respective places of posting as allotted to them vide orders dated 25.02.2024 and 13.03.2024 (Annexure-7). 20. Appropriate orders be passed within a period of 30 days from now. 21. It is however made clear that the SOG would be at liberty to undertake the investigation regarding the sports certificates of the petitioners and, if ultimately, the said certificates are found to be forged/fabricated, the respondent-Authorities shall be under a liberty to take appropriate action against the petitioners. Further, the petitioners would be under an obligation to respond/submit documents/appear in person whenever called upon by the SOG to do so. 22. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.