Bheru Lal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Prakash Chandra

Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4038/2017) decided on 28.11.2017. The said judgment reads as under :-

“1. Broadly, the petitioners have prayed that the Tribal Sub Plan (TSP) area may be treated as district-wise unit for the purpose of recruitment of

Constables for the Scheduled Tribe candidates in accordance with Circular of 2016 for the TSP area rather than the TSP area being taken as one unit

for the purpose of selection process.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4057/2017 seeks permission to withdraw S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4057/2017

only qua petitioner No.2.

The prayer is allowed.

Consequently, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4057/2017 is dismissed as withdrawn, only qua petitioner No.2 in that petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed out that the selection process for the post of Constable in Rajasthan Police was being undertaken

vide notification dated 10.02.2016. The petitioners belonged to Tribal Sub Plan area and are of Scheduled Tribe category.

The arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners is that as per the notification dated 10.02.2016 for the purpose of Tribal Sub Plan Area, the

Clause-4 provides for each district to be one unit for the purpose of selection process and in case, the candidates from the same district are not

available then the Scheduled Tribe candidates of other districts of Tribal Sub Plan area could be given appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have stated that the basic anomaly has arisen in the selection process as the respondents have admittedly not

operated the Clause 4 of the circular dated 04.07.2016 and have conducted the recruitment for the post of Constable by operating complete Tribal Sub

Plan area as one unit.

Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out from his additional affidavit that the petitioners have preferred the writ petition on 02.04.2017

and were granted interim order of participation in the selection process on 12.04.2017.

Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the select list was prepared on 17.03.2017 and published on 26.03.2017. It was further

pointed that the verification was done on 30.03.2017 and thereafter, appointment to all the selected candidates has been given on 17.07.2017. Further,

the appointment has been given on 20.07.2017 & 23.08.2017 respectively. Thus, as per learned counsel for the respondents even before launching

of the writ petition, the selection process was complete and the final select list was in operation.

Learned counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the respondents have strictly abided by the judgment laid down by this Court in S.B.Civil

Writ Petition No.4387/2017 in case of Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. decided on 25.11.2016. The judgment reads as

under:

“These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking directions to the respondents to consider the cases of the petitioners, allow them to

participate in the further selection process i.e. call them for interview and appoint them on the post of Forest Guard.

The respondent State issued an advertisement dated 26/10/2015 for direct recruitment to the post of Forest Guard in Scheduled Area (TSP). The

advertisement indicated in all 191 posts, under different Forest Ranges in the unreserved TSP category. The advertisement also indicated that in terms

of Notification dated 16/6/2013 of the State Government, for the areas included in Tribal Sub Plan (TSP), reservation would be 45% for the Scheduled

Tribe, and 5% for Scheduled Caste and rest 50% of the posts would be unreserved to be filled in by local residents only. The petitioners, who belong

to District Banswara, Dungarpur, Pratapgarh and Udaipur applied for the appointment on the post of Forest Guard pursuant to the advertisement and

applied for appointment under the Udaipur/Pratapgarh Range. Based on the applications filed by the petitioners, they were permitted to appear in the

written examination and, thereafter, they participated in the physical efficiency test as well. However, when the stage of taking interview of the

petitioners came, they were not permitted to participate for the respective recruitment under the Forest Range at the place of which they were not

residents i.e. the petitioners, who belonged to Udaipur, Dungarpur and Banswara were not permitted to appear for recruitment pertaining to

Pratapgarh Range and the petitioners belonging to Pratapgarh were not permitted to appear for interview for the recruitment pertaining to Udaipur

Range. Based on the said stipulation, the petitioners, who are all general category candidates, were not permitted to participate in the interview on the

ground that the said 50% unreserved posts were to be filled only by the local candidates.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court. By way of interim orders, the petitioners were directed to be interviewed by the respondents.

Further, under the directions of this Court the respondents have produced the results, based on interview, of the petitioners and from the documents

produced it is disclosed that three persons, Ekta Rajawat, Dasharath Lal Labana & Hamendra Singh Chouhan have obtained more marks than the cut

off marks as already declared by the respondents pertaining to their respective categories. Further, during the pendency of the writ petition, on an

application filed by the petitioners, the respondents were directed to keep 19 posts vacant at the Pratapgarh Range.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the action of the respondents in prescribing in the advertisement that 50% of the unreserved

posts would be filled by the local candidates is ex facie incorrect as the same is contrary to the law.

Reliance has been placed on Division Bench judgment of this Court in Santosh Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B.Civil Writ Petition

No.6176/2015 decided on 11/5/2016, wherein, the Notification dated 16/6/2013, which formed the basis for prescribing the said stipulation has been

quashed by the Division Bench.

Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in terms of the Circular, which was in existence at the relevant time when the advertisement was

issued and the recruitment was held i.e. till April, 2016 and the Notification held the field, wherein, said prescription has been indicated, however,

subsequent thereto after the said Notification was set aside, another Notification dated 4/7/2016 was issued by the State and the same has been made

applicable w.e.f. 16/6/2013 and the said Notification also prescribes such stipulation and, therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

Further alternative submissions were made that as the recruitment qua the posts which were kept vacant under the directions of this court is already

over, based on the existing Notification dated 16/6/2013 and the successful candidates are not party to the present writ petitions, the direction, if any,

issued by this Court pertaining to the posts, which are presently vacant i.e. 19 posts under the interim order passed by this Court and 03 posts which

remained vacant on account of nonjoining by the respective candidates at Range Pratapgarh totaling to 22 posts at Pratapgarh and 09 posts at Udaipur

Range may be confined to them only.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel Mr.Bharat Singh appearing for the applicants Arvind Labana and others, who were offered appointment on the posts, which were

stayed by this Court, and have filed application for impleading them as party respondents, were also heard as intervenors.

Once the Notification dated 16/6/2013 has been set aside by the Division Bench by its judgment dated 11/5/2016, it cannot be said that the same would

operate prospectively only, which aspect is further fortified from the Notification dated 4/7/2016 as the same has been made applicable by the

respondents w.e.f. 16/6/2013 i.e. retrospectively.

So far as the Notification dated 4/7/2016 is concerned, the relevant provision therein reads as under:-

“tgka HkrhZ ftyk Lrj ij dh tkuh gks vkSj fjfDr;ksa dk vo/kkj.k rFkk mudh lax.kuk Hkh ftyk Lrj ij dh tkuh gks] ogka vuqlwfpr [k.M ds fy, fjfDr;ka

izdfYir :i ls ml vuqikr ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tk;saxh] tks ftyksa ds vuqlwfpr [k.Mksa dh dqy tula[;k dk ftys dh dqy tula[;k ds lkFk gSA bl izdkj izdfYir :i

ls vo/kkfjr fjfDr;ksa dh 45 izfr’kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ,oa 5 izfr’kr fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds

vH;fFkZ;ksa ls Hkjh tk;saxhA vuqlwfpr {ks= dh 'ks""k 50 izfr’kr fjfDr;ksa ij fdlh Hkh tkfr ;k oxZ ds vuqlwfpr {ks= ds vH;FkhZ dk ;ksX;rk ds

vk/kkj ij ojh;rk Øe esa fu;ekuqlkj p;u fd;k tk;sxk] pkgs og vuqlwfpr tkfr ;k vuqlwfpr tutkfr ;k vU; fdlh oxZ ls lacaf/kr gksAâ€​

A bare look at the said provision indicates that 50% unreserved posts are to be filled up by the candidates belonging to ‘Scheduled Area’ and

admittedly, all the petitioners are residents of Scheduled Area. An attempt on the part of respondents to restrict the said position qua the candidates of

the area for which the recruitment is being made is not envisaged by the said stipulation and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to consideration of

their candidature based on the applications made by them for Pratapgarh/Udaipur Range.

It is also submitted by learned counsel for the State that infact after passing of the judgment in the case of Santosh Kumar Meena (supra) and, the

issuance of Notification dated 4/7/2016, for the recruitment held in pursuance to the advertisement for TSP Areas, the candidates belonging to

Scheduled Area, irrespective of their place of residence, have been considered for the unreserved posts.

In view of the above, by respondents’ own showing the petitioners are entitled for their consideration at the place for which they have applied.

It is indicated by the respondents that two petitioners i.e. Neeta Patidar and Vaibhav Chouhan have been rejected in the physical test and in view

thereof they are not entitled for any relief.

In view of the above discussion, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners except qua petitioners Neeta Patidar and Vaibhav Chouhan are allowed. The

respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners, who have been interviewed by the respondents pursuant to the directions of this

Court and have been awarded marks, for 22 unreserved posts lying vacant at Pratapgarh Range and 9 unreserved posts lying vacant at Udaipur

Range, in accordance with what has been indicated hereinbefore.

It is made clear that the appointments already made pursuant to the advertisement other than 22 and 9 unreserved posts shall not be affected on

account of this order by this Court. It is also made clear that the petitioners, who have been interviewed and presently are not falling within the cut off

marks would also be considered based on the fresh cut off which would be arrived at by the respondents after the said 22 & 9 posts are included for

the purpose of consideration. It goes without saying that the applicants Arvind Labana & others would also be considered alongwith other eligible

petitioners for the 22 & 9 vacant posts.â€​

This Court as per the learned counsel for the respondent, the Scheduled area was to be treated as one unit for the purpose of recruitment for the

post of Constable, the Hon’ble Court had given specific directions for the same while dealing with the notification dated 04.07.2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in their rejoinder have stated that the judgment of this Hon’ble Court in Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan

(supra) is applicable only for the General category candidates in scheduled area and cannot be operated on the Scheduled Tribe category candidates.

Learned counsel for the respondent has further stated that there cannot be a selection process by dividing the selection process into two parts i.e.

one part, the selection process shall be completed in district unit and another part of selection process shall be completed in Scheduled area as one unit

i.e. Tribal Sub Plan Area.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as precedent law cited at Bar, this Court is of the opinion

that though the circular dated 04.07.2016 prescribed for certain district-wise conditions but the same circular has been considered by this Hon’ble

Court in its judgment of Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan (supra), in which, this Hon’ble Court while considering the notification dated 04.07.2016, has

directed the respondents to treat the Scheduled area as one unit and since the petitioners are residents of Scheduled area, therefore, the complete unit

of the Tribal Sub Plan area are entitled for consideration of candidature based on their applications in their respective areas.

This Hon’ble Court while deciding the aforementioned case, has allowed the writ petition laying down the law that the petitioners were entitled

for their consideration at the place for which they have applied as the Tribal Sub Plan area was one unit.

Moreover, the respondents have filed a specific additional affidavit stating therein that the final select list was already prepared on 30.03.2017 and

subsequently, all appointments have been made in July, 2017, the writ petition was filed only on April, 2017 and thus, the selection process had virtually

culminated into final select list on 30.03.2017.

This Court is also of the view that since the Scheduled area has been stipulated to be one unit by the precedent law cited by learned counsel for

respondent, therefore, the Scheduled area cannot be bifurcated into district-wise units for the purpose of Scheduled Tribe candidates as it cannot be

permitted that the two categories have different units for selection process and the Scheduled area has to remain as one unit. The one unit is also

reflected in Para 2 of the circular dated 04.07.2016 and has been further clarified in the precedent law mentioned above.

After discussing the aforementioned position of law, the present writ petitions do not call for any interference at this stage only on the ground that

the select list was prepared on 17.03.2017, published on 26.03.2017 and verification was completed on 30.03.2017. Thus, the selection process was

completed even before filing of the writ petition. It is further made clear that all the appointments have been made in pursuance of the advertisement

in question on 20.07.2017 and 23.08.2017 and thus, there is no scope of interference since the selected candidates are not the parties to the present

writ petition. Furthermore, the selection process was completed with the final select list which culminated into verification on 30.03.2017 before writ

petitions were filed and hence, only on the ground that the selection process has already attained finality before the litigation was started, the present

writ petitions are dismissed. â€​

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the writ petition is dismissed in the same terms.