Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

STATE versus M K SRIMALI & ORS.

High Court of Rajasthan

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


STATE v M K SRIMALI & ORS. - SAW Case No. 93 of 1996 [2007] RD-RJ 1920 (12 April 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR

RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 93/1996

The State of Rajasthan through the

Secretary, Environment Department,

Government of Rajasthan, Government

Secretariat, Jaipur .....Appellant

Versus 1. Shri M.K. Shrimali, aged about 30 years, son of Shri M.L. Shrimali, resident of BH/G, Malaviya Regional Engineering

College, Jaipur 2 Sunil Kumar Sharma, aged 26 years, son of Shri Damodar Prasad Sharma, resident of

C/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Saini, 45, Gyatri

Nagar, Tonk Road, Sanganer Air Port

Circle, Jaipur .....Respondents/Petitioners 3. Rajasthan Board of Prevention and

Control of Pollution Government of

Rajasthan, Jhalana Doongri Institutional

Area, Jaipur through its Chairman. .....Proforma Respondent 12th April, 2007

Date of Judgment ::

PRESENT

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.M. LODHA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN

Mr. G.S. Gill, Additional Advocate General for the appellant-State

Oral Judgment (Per R.M. Lodha, J.)

Rajasthan Board of Prevention and

Control of Pollution-respondent No.3 (for short, `the Board') published an advertisement (1/91) for recruitment to the two posts of Environment Engineer and five posts of Assistant Engineer

(Environment). M.K. Shrimali (original writ petitioner No.1) and Sunil Kumar

Sharma (original writ petitioner No.2) applied for the post of Assistant Engineer

(Environment). The written examination was conducted on 23rd November, 1991 and the merit list of successful candidates was prepared out of which 24 meritorious candidates were called for interview on

February 17, 1991 by the selection board.

After holding interviews, a select list of the candidates was prepared but the same was cancelled. That necessitated the original writ petitioners to approach this

Court by filing the writ petition. To complete the narration of facts, it may be noticed here that out of five posts of

Assistant Engineers to be filled-in, three were in the general category and two in the reserved category. No candidate of

Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for reserved seats was found successful in written test and, therefore, the interviews were held only for filling the vacancies in the general category seats. 2. The sole ground on which the action of cancellation of selection list was challenged was that the State Government acted in an arbitrary manner in cancelling the select list. 3. The State Government as well as the

Board filed reply-affidavits in opposition to the writ petition and set out the reasons for cancellation of the select list. They stated that because of the discrepancies in the entire selection process and the said selection being not in conformity with the Board's own resolution, the decision was taken to cancel the select list. 4. The Single Judge, however, in his 14th order dated November,1995 was not satisfied with the stand of the State

Government and the Board and held that the decision of the State Government in cancelling the select list was arbitrary.

Consequently the Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the State

Government to proceed further with the process of selection for the vacancies of

Assistant Engineers (Environment) in general category as per select list. 5. The State impugns the decision of

Single Judge in this appeal.

On 5th February, 1996, the appeal was 6. admitted and the operation of the order 14th passed by the Single Judge on

November, 1995 was stayed. Thus for more than 11 years the stay order is operative.

Despite service the original writ petitioners (respondents No. 1 and 2 herein) have not chosen to appear. 7. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to the matter, we are unable to sustain the order of the Single Judge for more than one reason. For one, the legal position is no more res-integra that mere inclusion in the select list does not confer the candidates included therein an indefeasible right to appointment. The

State is under no legal obligation to fill-up all or any of the vacancies even after the entire selection process has taken place. It is true that the State has to act fairly and it cannot act in an arbitrary manner. In the present case, the reasons have been stated by the State

Government for cancelling the select list.

The said reasons cannot be said to be not good reasons. For another, and more important, that the Board at the relevant time did not have it's own rules governing such selection. In it's decision No. 82.83 the Board decided for a particular procedure to be followed for recruitment of Assistant Engineers. According to that there was to be a written examination; that maximum marks of the written examination were 75; that marks were also to be given for experience and interview out of 12 for each; that minimum qualification for SC / ST was to be as per the Rules adopted in Rajasthan Public

Service Commission and procedure for calling number of successful candidates was also to be as per the RPSC Rules and practice for calling for interview. As a matter of fact when the selection process was initiated and completed; even the

Board was not aware about the selection procedure which was being followed by

Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The minimum qualifying marks in the written examination were not determined. Similarly qualifying marks in written test with special provision for SC/ST candidates was not prescribed. As a matter of fact the entire selection process was not in accord and full conformity with the Board's resolution No. 82.83. Even though the reply by the State Government and the

Board was little bit deficient as all these aspects were not fully highlighted but the original file summoned by the

Single Judge concerning the special selection mentioned these deficiencies in the procedure. This is clearly seen from the concerned papers handed in by

Additional Advocate General for our perusal. However the Single Judge over- looked these aspects. 8. Before the appointments could be made based on the select list, on a re-look at the whole matter at various levels, if the

State Government found that procedure for selection was not in conformity with the

Board's own resolution No. 82.83 and consequently cancelled the select list, by no stretch of imagination can it be held that the action of the State Government in cancelling the select list was arbitrary. 9. As it is due to the stay order of the

Division Bench passed on 5th February, 1996 14th the operation of the order dated

November, 1995 remained stayed. It would not be unreasonable to presume that during this time the fresh selection to the vacant posts of Assistant Engineers

(Environment) would have taken place, more particularly after the Board had framed it's recruitment rules. This is fortified by the fact that neither the respondent

Nos. 1 and 2 nor anybody on their behalf is present. 10. Resultantly, we allow this appeal and 14th set-aside the order dated November, 1995. Since the respondents No. 1 and 2 have not chosen to appear, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.

R.S. Chauhan, J. R.M. Lodha,J.

DK/- 10


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.