Rakesh And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J

There is delay of 1091 days in filing the present appeal.

An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed.

The delay in filing the appeal is quite inordinate. However, in the interest of justice and for the reasons mentioned in the application for condonation

of delay, the same is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is thus condoned.

With the consent of learned counsel for the appellants/ writ petitioners, the matter has been heard finally.

This special appeal has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:

“(i) The order dated 25.11.2016 (Annex.1) may be quashed and set aside; and

(ii) The respondent State authorities may kindly be directed to interview the petitioners and thereafter, if petitioners are found eligible and higher in

merit than the appointed candidates, in their category, then appointment on the post of Forester (Vanpal) may be given to them with all consequential

benefits in pursuance of the advertised vacancy for the post of Forester (Vanpal).

(iii) Any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and the Petitioner may kindly be passed.â€​

The matter pertains to appointment on the post of Forester.

Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners, at the outset, submits that on the same date i.e. 25.11.2016, when the impugned order was

passed, the learned Single Judge had allowed a similar writ petition bearing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4387/2016 (Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan &

Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided on 25.11.2016), but the same relief was not extended to the present appellants/writ petitioners on the

ground that there was a specific averment on the part of the respondents that except two posts of different categories, which were lying vacant under

the directions of this Court, no post of Forester is vacant on the date, and that, the selections itself stood completed.

Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners further submits that an absolute and specific direction, as issued in Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan

& Ors.(supra), needs to have been in the case of present appellants/writ petitioners as well.

Learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court towards the judgment rendered in Vinay Pratap Singh

Chouhan & Ors.(supra), relevant portion of which reads as under:

“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:-

“ ,

,

45

5

50

,

â€​

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€​

It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellants/ writ petitioners that the present controversy is same as that of Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan

& Ors.(supra), and the only direction given by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order was that in case any post of the category to which the

appellants/petitioners belong is still vacant, they shall be interviewed for the post of Forester, and thereafter, the directions, as contained in Vinay

Pratap Singh Chouhan & Ors.(supra), shall be made applicable to the case of the present appellants/writ petitioners as well.

After hearing learned counsel for the appellants/writ petitioners as well as perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that in light

of the judgment rendered in Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan & Ors.(supra), the same relief, as contained therein, has already been granted by the

learned Single Judge, but the only difference is that it is subject to availability of the post, which is a reasonable observation, and it has been recorded

in the impugned order itself that in the previous case of Vinay Pratap Singh Chouhan & Ors.(supra), post was lying vacant, whereas in the present

case, the post of Forester was not available. However, a positive direction was still given by the learned Single Judge, as mentioned hereinabove, that

in case any post of Forester exists, then the consideration of the case of the present appellants/writ petitioners, in terms of Vinay Pratap Singh

Chouhan & Ors. (supra), shall be made.

In light of such positive observations made by the learned Single Judge, no case for interference in the impugned order is made out.

Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed. However, if at all any vacancy for the post in question is available, the appellants/writ petitioners

shall be free to exercise their rights arising out of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.