Ramesh Chand @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs :-

“ 1. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the revised result dated 13.05.2015 and termination order dated 16.10.2015 and 23.10.2015 may

kindly be quashed and set aside.

By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the original appointment order dated 15.01.2015 in pursuance of the advertisement year 2013, of the

petitioner on the post of Teahcer Grade-II (Social Science) may kindly be protected on the basis of the then merit with all consequential benefits.

3.By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to serve continue on the post of Teacher

Grade II Social Science as per his appointment order dated 15.01.2015 with all consequential benefits.

By an appropriate writ, order or direction, therespondent may kindly be directed to continue the service of the petitioner on the post of Teacher

Grade II (Social Science) in pursuance of appointment order dated 15.01.2015 with all consequential benefits.

Any other appropriate order, which deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.â€​

Brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the respondents invited applications for recruitment on the post of Teacher Grade-II on 02.08.2013. The

petitioner being eligible, applied for being appointed as Teacher Grade-II in pursuance of the advertisement in question and secured 307.14 marks, and

the cut-off were also same i.e. 307.14 marks, and his date of birth of was 21.08.1998.

After undergoing the verification process and on culmination of the selection process, the petitioner was given appointment order dated 15.01.2015,

which is Annexure-7 of the writ petition, and the petitioner in pursuance of the said order, joined his duties as Teacher Grade-II in the subject of Social

Science with the respondents. However, the result was reshuffled and earlier the cut-off marks i.e. 307.14 marks, were changed on account of the

reshuffling of the result due to the answers of certain question being revised, and therefore, the respondents issued a termination order against the

petitioner dated 16.10.2015, even when the petitioner was rendering his services at Swami Vivekanand, Government Model School, Jaisalmer.

Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court and this Court passed the following interim order in favour of the petitioner on 01.12.2015 :-

“The learned counsel Mr. BL Bhati is seeking time to file reply. He is permitted to file reply within one weeks.

In the meantime, the effect and operation of the order dated 16.10.2015 (Anexure-13) and subsequent order dated 23.10.2015 (Annexure-14) shall

remain stayed. The respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to work on the post upon which he was working prior to passing of the impugned

orders. Put upon 07.12.2015.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in the matter of State of

Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar Bishnoi & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.690/2017) decided on 05.09.2017. The relevant portion of this

judgment, reads as follows :-

“15. The expression: 'at this stage' in para 16 of the D.B. decision forms part of a sentence which reads: 'We direct that at this stage they will not

be ousted from service'. The expression: 'at this stage' would mean the time when the Division Bench passed the order. It simply means that those

who had been appointed would not be ousted from service. This is evident by the last sentence of para 16 which reads: 'The State Government will be

at liberty to pass fresh orders, after revising the results and adjusting equities protecting the interest of the appellants- petitioners, to the extent that

they will not be ousted from the select list and will be placed as far as possible at the bottom of the revised select list'. Further, in the preceding part of

the same paragraph, the Division Bench has held: 'In the circumstances, in order to allay any apprehension and to protect the interest of the

appellants-petitioners, who were appointed, and are under constant threat on the revision of lists under directions of the Court, without any fault

attributed to them, we find it appropriate to quash the order dated 30.8.2013 passed by the Secretary and Commissioner, Gramin Vikas and

Panchayati Raj Department (Panchayati Raj Primary Education), Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, to the extent that it directs termination of services

of those persons, who were ousted from selections on the declaration of the first revised results.'

This view appears to be influenced by the decisionof the Supreme Court reported as 2013(4) SCC 690, Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar

& Ors. in which candidates as per the (16 of 16) [SAW690/2017] original merit position being offered appointments had joined. Upon re-evaluation of

the marks they became liable to be removed since their merit position was lowered. The Supreme Court directed retention of said persons in service.

Under the circumstances, correcting the viewtaken by the learned Single Judge we dispose of the appeals directing that those who were offered

appointment pursuant to the advertisement in question as Teachers and are continuing to work as Teachers would not be ousted from service.â€​

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. Vs.

State of Chattisgarh & Ors. reported in 2013(14) SCC 494 in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has said that the candidate who have not found to

have committed any fraud or misrepresentation in being appointed and have served for more than three years, if terminated would not only impinge

upon their economic security but their dependents shall also be adversely affected. The Hon’ble Apex Court has also laid down that it would be

highly desirable and highly unfair to the candidates who are innocent appointees, if they are removed at this juncture after prolonged service.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, submits that without making any mention on merits, the petitioner has been fairly appointed after

undergoing the selection process and since the petitioner had not misled or made any false declarations or representation for getting the appointment

concerned, therefore, the petitioner’s appointment needs to be protected, in terms of the aforesaid precedent law.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further stated that the petitioner was eligible and qualified and as per the result declared by the respondents,

the petitioner stood in the merit and therefore, was offered an appropriate appointment and merely on account of revision of the result, the petitioner

cannot be ousted, as the petitioner is already rendering his services, in lieu of the appointment order dated 15.01.2015, and is continuing till today.

Learned counsel for the respondents has strongly refuted the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that there is a

valid reason for passing the termination order, as the result was revised and as per which, the petitioner did not stand in the merit, and therefore, the

petitioner is not entitled to be given appointment.

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case as well as precedent law cited at the Bar by learned counsel for the

petitioner, this Court is of the opinion that in pursuance of the recruitment process initiated for the post of Teacher Grade-II vide advertisement dated

02.08.2013, the petitioner was given appointment on securing merit vide appointment order dated 15.01.2015. The petitioner was eligible, qualified

and meritorious, at that juncture. However, subsequently, the respondents revised the result and the petitioner fell out of the merit, but nothing has

been attributed to the role of the petitioner to have secured the appointment by giving any wrong information or causing any fraud upon the

respondents. In the precedent laws cited at Bar by counsel for the petitioner in the matter of State Vs. Sandeep Kumar (supra) and Vikas Pratap

(Supra), it has been clearly laid down that the candidates, who have not found to have committed any fraud or misrepresentation for securing the

appointment concerned and have thereafter rendered services pursuant to their appointment, such services, if terminated, would affect them

adversely.

Thus, in light of the aforesaid precedent law, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 16.10.2015 is quashed and set aside with

the directions to the respondents to continue the petitioner as per his initial recruitment. However, the position of seniority of the petitioner shall be re-

assessed as per his merit, and the petitioner shall be required to climb down from the candidates, who are above him in seniority level, and who have

been recruited being more meritorious. The petitioner shall be entitled for all consequential benefits vis-a-vis other similarly situated candidates as the

petitioner has not been out of job even for a single day since the date of his initial appointment.