- (1.) These writ petitions involving similar controversy are being decided by this common order, however, the facts are illustratively taken from SBCWP No.1460/2013-Sandeep Kumar Babal Vs. State of Rajasthan. The petitioner, Sandeep Kumar Babal, was initially appointed on probation for a period of two years as Teacher Grade-III vide the order (Annex.P/1) dated 14.07.2010 in the pay scale of Rs.5200-20200 with the grade pay of Rs.2800/- after being duly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission in pursuance of the Advertisement No.1 dated 20.06.2008 and as modified by Advertisement No.2 dated 02.09.2008.
(2.) The said selection process, however, became matter of judicial scrutiny by this Court and in the DB Civil Special Appeal (W) No.207/2013- Vinita Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (decided on 02nd August, 2013) in a judgment authored by Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the Division Bench of this Court put to rest the said controversy, which occurred on account of revision of merit list upon answer key for the said examination by multiple choice questions found to be incorrect in respect of one question No.20 in Series-A paper, which was quoted by the Division Bench in the said judgment and consequently the said revision of merit list resulted in the ouster/termination of the persons like the present petitioners since in the revised merit list, they did not find their names having been pushed down. The Division Bench of this Court held that the revised merit list had to be given logical and consequential effect and, therefore, the termination/ouster of such persons like the present petitioners, was not liable to be interfered with. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Vinita Sharma is quoted herein below: - "The sequence of events constituting the factual backdrop is not in dispute. Noticeably, it is not the case of either of the parties that the judgments delivered in Hari Singh & Ors. and Meenakshi Sharma have, as on dates, being interfered with or modified by any higher forum. Though there is no specific direction in Hari Singh & Ors. , for ouster of the candidates earlier selected and appointed, but whose means do not find place in the revised merit list, in our estimate, having regard to the nature of the exercise directed, it was a contemplated and logical consequence as a corollary thereof. In Meenakshi Sharma , the plea, amongst others, that the revision of the merit list ought to be confined only to the writ petitions, was rejected in categorical terms. That no appointment of any candidate beyond the number of posts advertised in the selection process, has been recorded in emphatic terms. Apart from the fact that the appointment orders of the appellant/writ petitions did contain a stipulation that the same would be subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions filed before this Court, there is no semblance of any evidence that the 1688 posts said to be vacant as on 01.01.2013 or any number therefrom, had been within the purview of the selection process involved, but had remained unfilled even after the publication of the revised merit list. The reference of these vacancies therefore, is of no decisive significance. If these vacancies do not relate to the selection process in hand, accommodation of any unsuccessful candidates therein against the same, would not be permissible in law, as it would then tantamount to recruiting persons against posts, not thrown open to be competed for by the available, eligible and even more meritorious candidates. This would run contra to the constitutionally enjoined norms governing the process of recruitment to public service. As the litmus test, is and ought to be merit and merit alone exhibited by the performance of the candidates in a public participatory process initiated for appointment in public office, there cannot be any compromise with this imperative precept. The learned Single Judge in Meenakshi Sharma as well, left it to the discretion of the government to examine as to whether it is possible to accommodate/retain 171 candidates excluded from the revised merit list. As appointments have to be essentially made only against the posts advertised and for which selection had been held, in the attendant facts and circumstances, in our view, no judicial mandate, as sought for to retain the appellants/writ petitions in service, is warranted. XXX XXX XXX Having regard to the facts involved in Grijesh Shrivastava & Ors. , we are constrained to observe that this decision as well, is of no assistance to the appellants. As a comparative assessment of the merit of the candidates in the selection process in hand had been undertaken afresh, as per the decision in Hari Singh & Ors. , and as a consequence thereof, the appellants/writ petitioners could not make their mark to stake their claim against the vacancies, for which the process had been contemplated and conducted, we are constrained to hold that no writ, order or direction, in the exercise of our power of judicial review to continue them in service, in the singular facts and circumstances of the case, ought to be issued. The appeal is thus dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected. This notwithstanding, it would always be open for the respondents, if so advised, to take appropriate steps in terms of the observations made in Meenakshi Sharma. We however, make it abundantly clear that this parting observation should not be construed to be a direction to the State respondents to retain the appellants in service." Sd/- Sd/- (P.K. LOHRA), J. (AMITAVA ROY), CJ."
(3.) Though, the SLP No.25894/2013-Munna Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., is said to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the present writ petitions filed by the petitioners are little in different context and can be decided by this Court even without waiting for the final judgment of the Apex Court in the aforesaid special leave petition. In the aforesaid SLP, on 20.09.2013 the following interim order has been passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court: - "Issue notice on the special leave petition as also on the petitioners' prayer for interim relief, returnable in six weeks. Dasti, in addition, is permitted. In the meanwhile, operation of the impugned order of the Division bench of High Court shall remain stayed. It shall be the petitioners' duty to serve the respondents before the next date of hearing, failing which the interim order passed today shall stand automatically vacated.";