PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. - (1.) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs:- "(i) The entire selection process undertaken in pursuance of the advertisement (Annex-1) by Municipal Board, Khudala, Falna may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The appointment orders for the post of Safai Karamchari of respondent no. 4 to 12, which names are shown in select list dated 05.02.2015 (Annex-8) may kindly be quashed and set aside. (iii) The respondents be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioners for the post of Safai Karamchari pursuant to the advertisement (Annex-1). (iv) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be passed in the favour of the petitioners. (v) Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioners.
(2.) The brief facts as noticed by this Court are that the respondents had invited applications for the post of Safai Karamchari and the recruitment in question was in Khudala Falna where 22 posts were advertised in the advertisement dated 25.5.2012. The guidelines for the recruitment were also issued. The selection process was initiated in which there were 106 candidates who were declared as eligible, out of which 22 persons in the first phase and 12 persons in the second phase were declared successful. The proceeding was re-initiated on account of the same having been approved by the Chairman and Vice Chairman and, thus, the fresh process of selection was initiated vide advertisement dated 20.10.2014 whereby the lottery of the eligible candidates was decided to be held on 29.10.2014. The lottery could be held on the stipulated date on 29.10.2014 and it was undertaken on 5.2.2015 whereby 39 persons were selected out of which 22 persons have been given appointment.
(3.) Shri Rajesh Parihar, counsel for the petitioners has pointed out specific irregularities in the process which are as follows:- "In the first instance, one of the favoured persons of the respondent authorities, namely Sanjay Kumar S/o Baksoor Ram, respondent no. 12 in the present writ petition, who has neither filled the application form in pursuance of the advertisement (Annex-1), nor he has given any interview before first phase of the selection process, but surprisingly, when the appointment list which is too by lottery system, his name figured at serial no. 24 and he has been given appointment. * The another example is of Smt. Leela Devi W/o Manoharlal who is respondent no. 5, which application form was rejected in absence of appropriate experience certificate and reason of her rejection is specifically stated in the list prepared by the respondent Municipal Board at serial no. 34, despite that her name is surprisingly appeared in the select list at serial no. 17. * Similarly, one Badaram S/o Dungaram Choudhary (respondent no. 6) whose name is mentioned at serial no. 36 in the list of 103 persons and his candidature was rejected on the ground that he is having the registered marriage certificate and he didn't have any experience of Safai Work, but surprisingly his name was also appeared at serial no. 10 of the select list. Besides that, as per the guidelines issued by the State Government, Badaram belongs to Other Backward Class and as such, he cannot be appointed in the first phase on the post of Safai Karamchari while ignoring the available candidates from the downtrodden community like the petitioners. * Further, Smt. Meena Devi, Smt. Manju Devi, Bablu, Smt. Sushila Devi and Smt. Sonu Devi (being respondent No. 7 to 11), their names mentioned at serial no. 38, 53, 56, 61 and 103 in the list of 103 persons and their application forms were also rejected on one ground or another by the respondent authorities. But surprisingly, their names were also mentioned in the select list at serial no. 15, 12, 8, 13, 23 in the select list and granted appointment to the post of Safai Karamchari.";