Rajesh Kumar @APPELLANT@Hash State Of Rajasthan

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners raising issues pertaining to the recruitment for the post of Safai Karamchari. Learned counsel for the

respondents submits that the issues raised in the present writ petition are squarely covered by the judgment in Ravi Jajot & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan

& Ors. : SBCWP No.10496/2018, decided on 30.08.2018, wherein even for the issues, which are not covered by the judgment, it was directed that the

petitioners therein would represent before the respondents and a further direction has been given for consideration by a proper redressal committee.

It is further submitted that pursuant to the said direction, a redressal committee has been constituted by order dated 27.09.2018 by the respondents and

therefore, in light of the said judgment and constitution of the committee, the petitioners may also approach the said committee with the grievances as

raised in the present writ petition.

In the case of Ravi Jajot (supra), it was directed as under :-

The mandate of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India in fact required the respondents to carry out and implement the reservation in the

direct recruitment, which has been done by them, by prescribing a transparent and uniform criteria in a satisfactory manner, whereby the reserved

classes have been given complete opportunity to participate in their respective categories as well as in the General Category, as they are given in all

other recruitments.

This Court also finds that the checking and verification of the forms at the threshold was not possible, as the employment exercise at the initial

stage, has a humongous number of applicants, and to scrutinize them, would be waste of energy, whereas to scrutinize the selected candidates, who

are very limited in number, is an easy proposition, and therefore, the scrutiny and verification, after the select list is prepared, is a legally and

practically accepted solution, which is being conducted by the State of Rajasthan, and all other employment agencies in different recruitments, and

thus, being an acceptable norm, the same cannot be deviated from on any count.

Moreover, once the ineligible candidates are excluded from the recruitment at the stage of selection itself, then no prejudice shall be caused to any

candidate, who would have a right to participate in the selection process, as a lawful candidate.

This Court also finds that the waiting list could not have been made, as in the lottery system, the definite number of posts were required to be filled,

and any kind of waiting list would have been difficult to operate, in light of non-availability of the comparative merit.

It would be practically impossible for the respondents to have a waiting list, as, which of the waiting list would be given preference in the order of

merit or in the order of chronology, would be very difficult to settle, in case of not having the comparative merit. Thus, the respondents shall, after

having filled the seats from the selected candidates by way of lottery, shall be left with the option of making a fresh lottery for the available vacant

posts, which shall not create any discrepancy or disharmony amongst the candidates so selected, as due to lack of the comparative merit, every

candidate, who stands selected by way of lottery, is at the same pedestal, and making any chronology amongst them, would not be possible.

This Court also holds that cancellation of the 2012 recruitment and carrying forward of the vacancies thereof to 2018 is a prerogative of the State,

as the precedent law, after examination, clearly reflects that the State has the prerogative to prescribe a uniform and transparent criteria of carrying

forward the vacancies from one advertisement to another advertisement, and in this case, this Court finds that once the amendments in the Rules of

2012 were made vide notifications dated 23. 01.2014 and 11.04.2018, then the respondents, if would have carried out the recruitment, while

implementing the unamended law, would be detrimental to the larger interest of justice. Thus, the new Rule, which could have been adopted only

prospectively, was rightly applied on the vacancies brought forward by the advertisement of 2018.

Moreover, this Court has seen that no prejudice has been caused to the vacancies of the year 2012, as the candidates participating in 2012

employment exercise, have been given all relaxations, so that they can compete alongwith all other similarly situated candidates in a free and

transparent manner to have their chance of recruitment.

This Court also holds that the age relaxation to the OBC candidates cannot be provided, as the same is not stipulated in Rule 6 of the Rules of

2012, as quoted above, which provides age relaxation only for SC/ST candidates, and the respondents could not have acted beyond the Rules, which

are a legislative exercise.

This Court also holds that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2012 has been followed by the respondents, as they have not permitted any migration of the

reserved category to the General Category, particularly of those, who have availed the benefit on merits, as in this exercise, merit has no role to play,

and it is only the lottery, which has been made a modus operandi for conducting the recruitment process.

As far as the issues pertaining to overage, underage, 11th Class and 12th Class students and all other issues of persons not being permitted to fill

up the form even when they were ineligible and other discrepancies are concerned, this Court leaves it open for the petitioners to make representation

before the respondents, and this Court directs that the representation of each of the petitioner shall be decided by the respondents by passing a

speaking order, after constituting a proper Redressal Committee, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt

of certified copy of this order.

This Court also holds that if any candidate(s), who was not eligible or was entitled to be excluded from the process of recruitment, has been

included, then their services shall be terminated, after giving them opportunity of hearing. However, the proposition pertaining to the services of the

candidates, who have been terminated, after being given appointment, without giving them proper opportunity of hearing, cannot be accepted, as being

contrary to the basic law of audi alteram partem and the settled parameters of the natural justice, which require the opportunity of hearing to be given,

once appointment has been accorded. It would have been a different case, if the respondents would not have selected those candidates, if they were

ineligible, and in that event, the opportunity of hearing was not required to be given; but once the appointment has been given and such appointments

create a right in favour of the appointees, then such appointment needs to be protected to the extent and the respondents are directed that such

terminations will not be given effect to, until and unless fresh orders are passed by the respondents, while making necessary application of mind, after

giving the appointees proper opportunity of hearing.

The application preferred under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the selected candidates is accepted, for the reasons mentioned

therein. Learned counsel for the selected candidates has merely reiterated the arguments, which have been made on behalf of the respondents, and

thus, need not be dealt with separately.

The members of the Selection Committee being the relatives of the selected candidates, does not cut ice with this Court, as the lottery has been

conducted by a standard computer software, where no discretion was available with the Selection Committee or the relevant candidate(s) at the helm

of the affairs, and thus, such selection cannot be questioned on this ground.

The Government of India notifications have a persuasive value, but the State Legislation, particularly Rule 9 of the Rules of 2012, shall hold the

field, and therefore, in light of the recruitment being held in accordance with the Rules of 2012 and the Act of 2009, the argument pertaining to non-

adherence to the Government of India notifications is not accepted by this Court.

The third child controversy was previously adjudicated by this Hon’ble Court in the precedent law laid down in Smt.Indira Devi Vs. The State

of Rajasthan & Anr. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2703/2015 decided on 5. 11.2015), whereby the candidates having third child were allowed to be

recruited; but thereafter, the respondents have amended the Rules, and the disqualification has now found place in the Rules itself, and therefore, the

dimensions of the controversy have changed, and in light of such Rule, until and unless such Rule is interfered with by the competent court, the same

shall have to be adhered to, and the respondents shall be free to disqualify the candidates on the basis of such Rules, as brought in by way of the

amendment vide notification dated 11. 04.2018, whereby the disqualifications for appointment have been clarified under Rule 9A of the Rules of 2012.

Regarding the submission made on behalf of the petitioners that the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Local Bodies is required to carry

out the advertisement and prescribe the criteria for the present recruitment, this Court finds that the averments made by learned counsel for the

respondents are justified, as the Committee so constituted comprised of the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned Local Body as well, as is

discernible from the aforequoted order dated 13.04.2018, and thus, once the State level advertisement has been made and the State level criteria has

been prescribed, then giving the Local Bodies thefreedom to prescribe their own criteria, would have created a havoc with the recruitment, and the

basic concept of uniformity, transparency and lawful conduct of the recruitment would have suffered.

This Court also finds that in the advertisement itself, it was laid down that the Chief Executive Officers of the 184 Local Bodies were inviting

applications on behalf of the respective Local Body, for which the State was a communicative and cohesive recruting agency.

Before parting with this judgment, this Court makes it clear that any issue other than the issues dealt with by this Court in this judgment, which

remains open, shall be represented by the petitioners to the respondents, and the respondents shall decide all those factual and legal issues by passing a

respective speaking order in the cases of the petitioners, after giving them proper opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with law, as it is not

possible for this Court to go into individual facts of individual petitioner in such exercise, and therefore, this Court directs the respondents to pass

lawful and speaking orders in all those matters.

It is further made clear that the petitioners, whose issues have not been dealt with by this Court in this judgment, shall have the liberty to approach

this Court again, after the respective representations are decided by the respondents, if so advised.

Such issues shall be decided by the respondents through a proper Redressal Committee to be constituted by the respondents themselves, in

pursuance of aforesaid direction contained in this judgment, at the appropriate level, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified

copy of this judgment.

The grievances of the candidates having extraordinary sports skills were also taken up by this Court, and after hearing learned counsel for the

parties on the said issue, this Court finds that since they are dependent upon the settled parameters of giving preference to the sports persons, this

Court directs that the representations of such sports persons shall be decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order, while giving them proper

opportunity of hearing, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment.

Further, while making such consideration, the criteria for sports persons, as mentioned in such representations, shall also be duly dealt with and

considered by the respondents, strictly in accordance with law.

The complete selection exercise, in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018, in larger public interest, shall be completed by the

respondents in an expeditious manner, subject to giving effect to the directions given by this Court in these matters.

All these writ petitions arising out of recruitment process of Safai Karamchari in pursuance of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018, stand disposed

of, as per the above observations and directions. However, it is made clear that any issue, which has been pleaded, but not decided by this judgment,

shall require the petitioners to file representation before the respondents, which shall be decided by the respondents by passing a respective speaking

order, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.â€​

In view of the above directions and the fact that a committee has been constituted, the writ petition filed by the petitioners stands disposed of with

similar directions as given in the case of Ravi Jajot (supra).