Navdeep Chawariya And Others vs State Of Rajasthan And Others

Dinesh Mehta, J

Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in the present writ petition is covered by a judgment dated 09.08.2019, passed by Division Bench of this Court in a bunch of writ petitions led by D. B. Special Appeal Writ No.1733/2018 : Virendra Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Mr. Piyush Bhandari, learned counsel for the State prays for some time to complete his instructions.

It is to be noted that on two occasions, i.e. on 05.01.2022 and 24.01.2022, the matter had already been adjourned and Mr. Sunil Beniwal, the then learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State had sought time to complete instruction.

Even today, the State is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts.

Perused the record and heard Mr. Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners.

After hearing Mr. Dave and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the issue involved in the present case is squarely covered by judgment dated 09.08.2019 passed by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Virendra Kumar (supra).

The operative portion of the judgment in the case of Virendra Kumar (supra) is reproduced herein:-

“32. Keeping the principle enunciated in Dash (supra), it is evident from the facts in the present set of appeals that the recruitments, which were initiated in 2012, were bogged down by litigation; the earmarking of vacancies, the lottery system, allegations of introduction of the lottery system mid-stream, increase in the number of vacancies, etc became the subject matter of multiple writ petitions which led to court interventions on about five occasions. The incomplete recruitment, (in complete because some vacancies had been filled up but in regard to others either the process had not been completed, or the select lists not fully operated), and vacancies accruing later, were all combined; those who could not be appointed, due to the discontinuance of the selection process (of 2012) were allowed to participate in the fresh process; they were afforded age relaxation, apart from those candidates who fulfilled the eligibility criteria. In these circumstances, the State’s decision to carry out the entire exercise afresh, after combining the left-over vacancies (of 2012) cannot be faulted. This contention, therefore, fails. Likewise, in the opinion of the court, the petitioners in Ravindra have not made out a cause for intervention; that names of some of them were included in the select list, cannot be the basis for holding the 2018 recruitment arbitrary; nor can they enforce any right, as candidates selected in the 2012 recruitment process. Clearly, the vacancies from that selection process could be clubbed with later vacancies and made subject of a fresh recruitment process. Norule or regulation, or binding norm which precluded the State from holding a recruitment in respect of such combined vacancies was shown to the court.

As far as the last contention, with regard to inclusion of names of ineligible candidates, or those who submitted false information or declarations (with respect to their fulfilling any eligibility condition, or their applying for more than one vacancy, or more than one member of the same family applying, contrary to terms of the advertisement is concerned) this court is of the opinion that the state should take expeditious action to delete their names from the select list, in accordance with law. In the case of candidates whose names were deleted, it is a matter of record that many of them have approached the court. Their names shall be dealt with in accordance with the final order of the court, in their cases.

As a result of the above discussion, the appeals have to succeed in part; the respondent State shall draw the select list, after excluding the names of those reserved category candidates, who were granted age relaxation, and were afforded the opportunity of participation in the selection through draw of lots, for the open category. A fresh select list, based upon a new draw of lots to be conducted from amongst names of all eligible candidates, (excluding those reserved category candidates who had availed age relaxation benefits, but were allowed a second chance in the draw of lots for the general category candidates) shall be prepared, in respect of balance vacancies. The respondents shall also ensure that names of ineligible candidates, or those who made false declarations are suitably removed, in accordance with law; this is subject to the final outcome of the proceedings initiated by such candidates.

In the light of the foregoing discussion, the appeals are partly allowed; all applications too are therefore, disposed of.”

The present writ petition is disposed of in light of the Division Bench judgment passed in the case of Virendra Kumar (supra).

The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.