- (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
(2.) THE facts and circumstances, and the issues raised in these Special Appeals, arising out of the judgments of learned Single Judge dated 20.12.2013 and 08.01.2014, are common to the facts and the grounds, in which D.B. Civil Special Appeal No.793/2014 -Mohan Lal Kadwasra Vs. Raj. State Road Transport Corp. and ors., and 8 other connected Special Appeals, were decided by a Division Bench, sitting at the Principal Seat of this Court at Jodhpur, by judgment dated 08.01.2015. The Division Bench held as follows: - 6. In the present case, we find considerable substance in the argument of learned counsel appearing for the appellants that having received the complaints on 13.6.2013, prior to the issuance of appointment letters of the appellants -petitioner dated 26.6.2013, the Corporation did not act promptly in getting the complaints examined. The Committee was constituted on 21.8.2013, and on receipt of the report from such Committee, the results were revised on 19.9.2013. In between, on 6.8.2013, the Corporation had advertised 1428 vacancies on the posts of Conductor, which included 89 vacancies, on which the7 appointees of 2012 selections, in which the appellants had participated and were selected, had not joined. It is submitted that apart from the benefit of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that the services of the persons appointed through competitive examination in accordance with the Rules, should not be terminated on the ground of preparation of erroneous results, for which nothing can be attributed to them, the appellants -petitioners were deprived of the chance of applying in the subsequent recruitment to the posts, which were advertised on 6.8.2013, and on which date, they were working with the Corporation in pursuance of earlier selections. 7. We do not find any good ground to deny the appellantspetitioners the benefit of the rule of law, serving principles of equity, developed by the Supreme Court in which it is clearly stated that it will be highly unjust and grossly unfair to terminate the services of those persons, who are innocent appointees of an erroneous evaluation of the answer scripts. Their continuation in service should neither give any unfair advantage to them nor cause any undue prejudice to the candidates selected qua the revised merit list. 8. In the present case, we find from the averments made in the pleadings that 89 persons did not join in the selections for 718 advertised vacancies and these vacancies were subsequently included in the subsequent selections, which were advertised on 6.8.2013 when the appellants were already working with the Corporation. 9. We do not find any substance in the contention of the counsel appearing for the Corporation that the judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka V/s Uma Devi, 2006 4 SCC 1, providing that all appointments in public services should be made serving the principles of8 equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, would in any way deny the appellants the benefit of the principles of equity in allowing them to continue, when they were selected and appointed in the selections under the statutory Rules and were terminated on the revision of the select list. 10. In view of the pronouncement of the law by the Supreme Court, which serves the principles of equity to protect the appointments of those persons, who have no role in the revision of the results, the Special Appeals are allowed. The orders by which the services of the appellants -petitioners were terminated are set aside. The appellants however will not be reinstated in service. They will be given appointment letters and will be placed at the bottom of the select list, after the last appointee in the selections of the revised list, in pursuance to the advertisement dated 23.3.2012. As the appellantspetitioners are still working in pursuance to the interim orders passed by this Court, the pay and allowances, which they have drawn before their re -appointment, shall not be recovered back from them."
(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellants that the posts reserved for horizontal reservation for the selections of the year 2012, could not have been carried forward to the next selections (the subject selections). We do not find that any such ground was either taken or argued before learned Single Judge, and that in any case, such ground will amount to fresh cause of action to the persons, who are seeking relief, to be picked up from the previous selections, for which the posts on horizontal basis, could not have been carried forward.;