Karu Lal Patidar @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming, in sum and substance, the following

reliefs:

“A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the advertisement for the post of Teacher Grade-III Exam, 2013 for the district Pratapgarh

(Annexure-2) may kindly be quashed and set aside.

B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondents may kindly be directed to provide/earmark the vacancy/post for Non TSP candidates in

General/SC/ST/OBC/SBC category for the petitioners belonging to Chhoti Sadari Tehsil (Non-TSP) area in the Teacher Grade-III Exam, 2013.

C. By an appropriate writ order or direction, therespondent may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to apply fill the form for the post of Teacher

Grade-III from District Pratapgarh under Non-TSP category online/offline and further allow them to appear in the exam which is going to be held on

11.10.2013.

D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondentsmay be directed to allow the petitioners from appearing in the exam of Teacher Grade-III,

2013 from District Pratapgarh and respondents may further directed to grant appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III with all consequential

benefits.

E. By an appropriate writ, order or direction respondentsmay be directed to earmark vacancy for Non TSP candidates, for the petitioners belonging to

Chhoti Sadari for the post of Teacher Grade-III in Pratapgarh district.

F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which thisHon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case

may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

G. Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly beallowed with costs.â€​

The petitioners, being eligible for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-III, participated in the related selection process arising out of

advertisement of the year 2013 conducted by the respondents for the posts of Teacher Grade-III Level I & Level-II, 2013. The petitioners applied for

the said post in pursuance of the said advertisement from Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, but they were not able to fill-in their forms for

the same, as the vacancies were not determined in the

advertisement for Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh, which is a Non-TSP area in the TSP District of Pratapgarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have shown from the advertisement that in the other districts where TSP and NonTSP areas are demarcated,

like the District of Udaipur and District of Sirohi, there are separate categorization of Non-TSP/TSP posts. Learned counsel for the petitioners have

also shown the notified circular dated 15.05.2009, which clearly points out that in Pratapgarh District, four Tehsils, namely,Pratapgarh, Arnod,

Dhariyawad and Pipalkhoot, are included in the TSP areas, whereas Tehsil Chhoti Sadri is not included as TSP area. Furthermore, a certificate dated

28.06.2013 (Annexure-5 of the writ petition) came to be issued by the District Collector, Pratapgarh to the effect of non-inclusion of Chhoti Sadari

Tehsil area as TSP Area. The said document Annexure-5 of the writ petition, reads as under:

“jktLFkku ljdkj dk;kZy; ftyk dyDVj] izrkixØekad % lkekU;@2013@858                     Â

                                                          Â

                                               fnukad 28-06-2013 izek.k i=

;g izekf.kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ftyk izrkixlfEefyr gS tcfd rglhy {ks= NksVhlknMh tutkfr mi ;kstuk ¼TSP½ {ks= esa lfEefyr ugah gSA

,lMh@& ftyk dyDVj

izrkix4. Learned counsel for the petitioners points out that once a separate procedure was adopted by the respondents for Udaipur and Sirohi Districts qua

the posts in respect of the candidates of Non-TSP Area belonging to the General/SC/ST/OBC/SBC

categories alongwith candidates of the TSP Area belonging to the General/SC/ST categories, then the same procedure ought to have been adopted in

respect of Tehsil Chhoti Sadri as well, which is a Non-TSP area lying in TSP District of Pratapgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioners have pointed

out Annexure-3 of the writ petition, which clearly reflects the aforementioned situation for Udaipur and Sirohi Districts.

Learned counsel for the petitioners have also shown Page 7 of the Paper book, which shows the aforementioned anomaly in the District of

Pratapgarh. Learned counsel for the petitioners have also pointed out from the reply of the respondents, that the respondents have not come with

clean hands before this Court in regard to the fact that there was no separate determination of the vacancies for the candidates of Tehsil Chhoti Sadri,

which is a Non-TSP area.

Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have pointed out the consideration made by the State of Rajasthan on 11.03.2016 in relation

to the aforesaid situation, which reads as follows:

“jktLFkku ljdkj

xzkeh.k fodkl ,oa iapk;rh jkt foHkkx

¼iapk;rh jkt foHkkx½

Øekad%,Q13¼93½ijkfo@fof/k@tks/k mPp@16@632 Â

                                                   Â

                                                      Â

 t;iqj] fnukad 11-3-16

 cSBd dk;Zokgh fooj.k

ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; tks/kiqj esa fopkjk/khu ;kfpdk la[;k 12356@13 dk: yky ikVhnkj o vU; cuke jktLFkku jkT; o vU; ,oa ;kfpdk la[;k

2468@15 jf’e ;ksxh cuke jktLFkku jkT; o vU; esa ekuuh; mPp U;kk;y; tks/kiqj }kjk ikfjr varfje vkns’k fnukad 09-03-16 ls r`rh; Js.kh v/;kid

HkrhZ ijh{kk 2013 esa ftyk izrkixtkus ds dkj.k okafNr Liâ€Vhdj.k ds laca/k esa eq[; lfpo egksn; dh v/;{krk esa cSBd fnukad 11-032016 dks nksigj 12-30 cts vk;ksftr dh xbZA mDr

cSBd esa fuEukafdr vf/kdkjhx.k mifLFkr gq,%&

1- izeq[k ‘kklu lfpo] tutkrh; {ks=h; fodkl ¼Vh,Mh½foHkkxA

2- ‘kklu lfpo] iapk;rh jkt foHkkx

3- ‘kklu lfpo] izkjfEHkd f’k{kk foHkkx

4- ‘kklu lfpo] dkfeZd foHkkxA5- funs’kd] izkjfEHkd f’k{kk foHkkxA

cSBd esa r`rh; Js.kh f’k{kd HkrhZ 2013 ds fy, funs’kd izkjfEHkd f’k{kk foHkkx }kjk ftyk izrkixoxhZdj.k ,oa dkfeZd ¼d&2½ foHkkx }kjk tkjh vf/klwpuk fnukad 16-06-13 ij foLr`r fopkj foe’kZ fd;k x;kA tutkfr {ks=h; fodkl foHkkx }kjk

vkns’k Øekad ,Q 5¼25½

¼22½kkVh,Mh@96&97 t;iqj fnukad 23-06-04 ls mn;iqj] fpRrkSMxds izfr’kr vuqlkj vkjf{kr inksa dk fu/kkZj.k fd;k x;kA oâ€kZ 2008 esa izrkix¼d&2½ foHkkx }kjk vf/klwpuk fnukad 1606-13 ls Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la[;k ,Q 19¼2½ 80&,y&1 fnukad 12-02-81 }kjk fofufnZâ€V

vuqlwfpr {ks=ksa esa jkT; lsokvksa dks NksMdj vU; lHkh jktdh; lsokvksa ds inksa ij lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk Hkjh tkus okyh fjfDr;ksa dh 45 izfr’kr

fjfDr;ka vuqlwfpr tutkfr;ksa ,oa 5 izfr’kr vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa ds LFkkuh; lnL;ksa ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ls rFkk ‘ksâ€k 50 izfr’kr bu {ks=ksa esa

vukjf{kr in ekurs gq, LFkkuh; fuokfl;ksa ls Hkjs tkus ds funsZ’k izlkfjr djrs gq;s] fjfDr;ksa ds vo/kkj.k rFkk inksa dh HkrhZ dh O;oLFkk fu;r dh

xbZA izrkixdh O;oLFkk ds fu;ru ugah gksus ls izrkixNksVhlknMh ds fy;s inksa dk fu/kkZj.k izkjafHkd f’k{kk foHkkx }kjk ugha fd;s tk ldus ds dkj.k iapk;rh jkt foHkkx }kjk in foKkfir ugah fd;s tk

ldsA r`rh; Js.kh f’k{kd HkrhZ 2013 es xSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr mi;kstuk rglhy {ks= NksVhlknMh ds fy;s in foKkfir ugah gksus ds dkj.k ijh{kk ds fy;s

;ksX; cgqr ls vH;kfFkZ;ksa }kjk vkosnu ugah fd;k x;kA ,slh fLFkfr esa dsoy ;kfpdkdrkZvksa dks r`rh; Js.kh f’k{kd HkrhZ 2013 dh p;u izfØ;k esa

lfEefyr fd;k tkuk leku volj ds ekSfyd vf/kdkj ds foijhr gksxk rFkk vU; ;ksX; vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lkFk bl izdkj dk fu.kZ; lkE;iw.kZ ugha gksxkA

vr% xSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr mi;kstuk rglhy {ks= NksVhlknMh ds r`rh; Js.kh f’k{kd HkrhZ ijh{kk 2013 gsrq ;ksX; lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fgrksa dks

lqjf{kr j[kus dks n`fâ€​Vxr j[krs gq, fuEuor fu.kZ; fy;s x;s%&

1- r`rh; Js.kh f’k{kd HkrhZ 2013 ds fy;s foKkfir fjfDr;ksa dhla[;k vuqlkj xSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr mi;kstuk rglhy {ks= NksVhlknMh ds fy;s fjfDr;ka

izdfYir :i ls mi vuqikr ds vk/kkj ij vo/kkfjr dh tkos] tks ftys ds xSj vuqlwfpr tutkfr mi;sktuk rglhy {ks= NksVhlknMh dh dqy tula[;k dk izrkixtula[;k ds lkFk gSA

2- bl izdkj vo/kkfjr fjfDr;ksa ij HkrhZ dh dk;Zokgh vkxkeh r`rh;Js.kh f’k{kd HkrhZ ijh{kk ds lkFk fd;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh dh tkosA

3- tutkfr {ks=h; fodkl foHkkx }kjk mn;iqj] fpRrkSMxizfr’kr ds vk/kkj ij fu;r dh xbZ vkj{k.k O;oLFkk vuqlkj izrkixdk;Zokgh dh tkosA

,lMh@&

mik;qDr ¼izf’k{k.k½â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents have also stated that it was recognized by the respondents that they had failed to demarcate separate seats for

Tehsil Chhoti Sadri but since the selection process was already over therefore, the decision was taken by the respondents to carry forward the seats

in the subsequent selection process. It is also contended by learned counsel for the respondents that in pursuance of the decision taken on 11.03.2016,

the subsequent recruitment in 2013 was carried out in the manner that the additional seats were allocated to Tehsil Chhoti Sadri.

This Court takes note of the orders passed by this Court on 04.10.2013, 12.01.2015, 12.08.2015, 03.09.2015, 09.03.2016, 28.11.2016 & 05.09.2017,

which read as follows:

“01.10.2013

Mr. Mahendra Choudhary appearing on behalf of respondent submits that a recommendation has been made to the State Government to provide

necessary vacancies for

Panchayat, Chhoti Sadri, which is not a part of Tribal Sub Plan Area. He wants some time to complete the instructions. Time prayed for is allowed.

Put up on 28.10.2013.

In the meanwhile, the respondents are directed to accept application form if the petitioners submit offline to appear in Teacher Gr.III Direct

Recruitment Examination, 2013 for the District Pratapgarh. They may also be permitted to face process of selection provisionally as desired in

application form. The application form by the petitioners are required to be submitted on or before

09.10.2013.

12.01.2015

Learned counsel for the respondents states that they have no objection in declaring the result of the petitioners.

Accordingly, the result of the petitioner be declared forthwith.

However, it is clarified that in case, the petitioners clear the said test, the same shall be subject to the final decision of the present petition.

12.08.2015

Heard in part.

Mr. P.R. Singh and Mr. S.S. Ladrecha, AAG pray for some time to take instructions on the issue as to whether or not, the questioned selection

process was conducted in the letter and spirit of the notification dated 16.06.2013.

List the matter on 03.09.2015 for further hearing.

03.09.2015

Learned AAG Shri SS Ladrecha states that the deliberations are going on at the government level for considering the controversy relating to the

prayer made in these writ petitions regarding extending the TSP reservation to candidates, who reside in Chhoti Sadri. Appropriate decision shall be

taken in this regard within four weeks.

List the matters on 5.10.2015 for further hearing.

09.03.2016

On 04.10.2013, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State of Rajasthan stated that a recommendation has been made to the State

Government to provide necessary vacancies for Panchayat Samiti Chhoti Sadri which is not a part of triable sub-plan area. On the basis of statement

given, the writ petition was adjourned for 28.10.2013.

Despite several opportunities, the learned counsel for the respondents failed to apprise the Court about the fate of recommendation made for providing

necessary vacancies for Panchayat Samiti, Chhoti Sadri.

On 03.09.2015, learned Addl. Advocate General stated that the deliberations are going on at the Government level for considering the controversy

relating to prayer made in these writ petitions specially with regard to extension of TSP reservation to the candidates residing in Chhoti Sadri.

Subsequent thereto, the matter was listed before this Court on 05.10.2015 and 25.02.2016.

The learned Addl. Advocate General is not in a position to acquaint the Court about the decision, if any, taken by the State Government as a

consequence to the deliberations referred in the order dated 03.09.2015. The learned Additional Advocate General to make a definite statement about

the fact concerned, as recorded in the order dated 04.10.2013 and 03.09.2015 by 14.03.2016 want some time.

If the decision has yet not taken by the respondents then the Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Panchayati Raj as well as

Principal Secretary to the Government of Rajasthan, Department of Personnel are directed to remain personally present before the Court on next date

of hearing.

28.11.2016

The matter comes up on an application (APPLW No.5853/2016 preferred for early listing of the matter for final disposal.

It is to be noticed that the petition already stands admitted on 18.8.14. The matter with regard to final disposal shall be considered at the time of final

orders on stay petition.

Let the matter be listed for orders on 23.1.17 along with connected CW No.2468/2015. The application stands disposed of accordingly.

05.09.2017

Heard. Admit.

Issue notice. Mr. Vikas Choudhary, learned counsel is directed to accept notices on behalf of the respondentsState.

List the matter for final hearing on 12.010.2017.

In the meanwhile, respondents shall keep 23 posts of Teacher Graded-III (equal to the number of petitioners) vacant, pursuant to Teacher Grade-III

Exam- 2013.

However, if the final list/select list has been prepared, the appointment order shall not be issued to 23 candidates, lowest in the merit list.â€​

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court finds that admittedly, on the part of the respondents,

they have failed to demarcate the seats of Non-TSP area of Tehsil Chhoti Sadri in the TSP district Pratapgarh. In the review by the High Powered

Committee of the respondents, proceedings of which were drawn on 11.03.2016, it was also declared that such failure was sought to be rectified by

giving extra posts to the Tehsil Chhoti Sadri in the subsequent selection process, which as per the respondents, have been given, but the same did not

provide relief to the petitioners, who are contesting for such relief. It is also noted that the seats of Non-TSP Tehsil Chhoti Sadri were included in the

TSP area of Pratapgarh district.

Thus, in light of the aforesaid accepted anomaly created by the respondents and the decision taken by the respondents, this Court deems it

appropriate that in the interest of justice, the respondents shall publish a separate advertisement for 23 posts of Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, which are

governed by the aforequoted interim orders passed by this Court, and thereafter, make fresh recruitment against those 23 posts by giving equal

opportunity to the petitioners to participate in such process. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of six months from today. After the

exercise, if the petitioners fall in merit and are otherwise eligible then appropriate appointment shall be given to them. It is made clear that the

respondents shall be required to create the re-advertisement for 23 posts for Tehsil Chhoti Sadri, which shall be available to the present 23 petitioners

to participate alongwith all other eligible candidates. The petitioners shall be given opportunity to fill-up their fresh forms to participate in such

recruitment on the same eligibility criteria as laid down in 2013 for Non-TSP area. The respondents shall be free to take the posts for such exercise

from future posts, if 23 posts are not vacant. Rest of the apportioned posts can be ensured to be demarcated for the separate selection process as the

total posts in Tehsil Chhoti Sadri ought to have been 54 posts, if not already advertised separately. However, the present order is only for 23 posts as

23 petitioners, before this Court today, are to be given a fair opportunity of participation in the selection process, as per the accepted anomaly by the

respondents.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the present writ petitions are disposed of.