CourtKutchehry.com
Supreme CourtDivision Bench

State of Rajasthan vs Kiran Meena

Supreme Court Of India · Decided on 21 February 2017 · Citation: 2017 AIR(SCW) 2432 : AIR 2017 SC 2432 : (2018) 12 SCC 503

HON’BLE JUDGES
Adarsh Kumar Goel, J · Uday Umesh Lalit, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution of India, 1950 — Article 16, Article 309 · Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examinations) Rules, 1999 — Rule 20 (2)
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Appellate Civil Appeal No. 3082 of 2017, (Arising Out Of Slp(C)no.5779 of 2015)
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 353 words
1.

Leave granted.

2.

This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 5th December, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.878 of 2014.

3.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

4.

There were ten vacancies reserved for the ST Woman candidates, out of which three were for ST (Tribal Sub Plan) (which was a sub-category of ST). Against the said vacancies, seven persons in the category of ST, senior to the respondent, were offered appointment. Three persons did not join. The respondent claimed appointment against the vacancy which arose on account of non-joining of candidate. This plea has been upheld by the High Court.

5.

Mr. S.S. Shamshery, learned counsel Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State, submitted that under Rule 20(2) of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 if a person does not join, the vacancy has to be treated as a fresh vacancy. The said rule is as follows:

"20. Selection by the Government or by the Appointing Authority:-

(1) xxx xxx xxx

(2) If a person, selected under sub-rule (1) above and appointment to a Post Service concerned in accordance with the relevant Service Rules, against the vacancies of a particular year for which the Combined Competitive Examination was conducted by the Commission in accordance with these Rules, does not join on the post offered to him/her or has resigned or expired in any subsequent year, in that event the said vacancy shall be treated as fresh vacancy."

6.

In view of above, the vacancy which arose on account of non-joining of the candidate, could not be offered to the respondent. The same had to be taken as fresh vacancy. The said vacancy is said to have been filled up in subsequent selection. From the pleadings and the order of the High Court, we do not find any provision for the waiting list.

7.

In view of above, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. No costs.