AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Matter comes up on Misc. Application No. 18554/2018, filed by the petitioner for deciding the instant writ petition in the light of judgment passed at
Principal Seat at Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 5363/2015 (Niwasa Ram Vs. State & Ors.) decided on 12th August, 2016. This Court with
the consent of learned counsel for the parties is deciding this writ petition at this stage.
Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had applied for the post of Teacher Grade-II in Hindi Subject in response to advertisement issued by the
RPSC vide its advertisement dt. 2nd August, 2013. The petitioner participated in the selection processwritten examination and thereafter the final
result was published on 19th September, 2014 and the petitioner came to be selected in General, Locomotive Disorder Category at Merit No. 1013.Â
Name of the petitioner was recommended by the RPSC for appointment in the select list prepared on 22nd December, 2014 and the petitioner joined
his duties on 29th December, 2014.
The respondents issued an order on 13th May, 2015, whereby appointment of the petitioner was canceled as respondents had undertaken reshuffling
of the result due to change of category of some persons.
The petitioner approached this Court by filing of the instant writ petition and this Court on 28th May, 2015, had passed the interim order and stayed the
operation of orders dt. 13th May, 2015 & 14th May, 2015.
The petitioner has submitted that again reshuffling of the result took place on 17th August, 2016 and name of the petitioner was again included in the
reshuffled result.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a similar situation, the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Niwasa Ram Vs. State & Ors.
(supra) has held that if the reshuffling of the merit list taken place, the termination order so passed of a candidate, would become nonest as name of
the candidate was again reflected in the subsequent list prepared by the RPSC.
The relevant portion of the order passed at Principal Seat, Jodhpur is quoted hereunder:-
“The matter was taken up on 19.05.2015, on which date, notices were issued on the writ petition and the interim order staying the operation of the
impugned termination order came to be passed. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the date termination order came to be passed by
the respondents, RPSC re-visited the merit list and again reshuffled the result in which the name of the petitioner came to be reflected again.
Mr. BL Bhati, appearing on behalf of the State, does not dispute this position and submits that the petitioner is already in service and the writ petition
should be disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. However, counsel for the petitioner seeks the relief that his services may be counted as
the date of his initial appointment i.e. 15.01.2015.
This prayer seems to be reasonable keeping the fact in mind that when the petitioner was offered the letter of appointment, his name was reflected in
the merit list and it only on account of reshuffling of the merit list, the termination order came to be passed. Once the RPSC suo motu decided to
reshuffle the merit list again, the order of termination dated 13.05.2016 would become non-est since the name of the petitioner was again reflected in
the subsequent list prepared by the RPSC. No fault can be attributed to the petitioner nor did he obtain the said appointment by playing any fraud. His
services would be deemed to have come into effect on 15.01.2015. Consequently, his services are to be counted from that date.
The writ petition, therefore, stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.â€
Learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC has submitted that the fact situation emerging in the present case is different as the petitioner in the present
petition was not selected and placed in the main merit list after second reshuffling. Counsel informed this Court that due to non joining of the
candidate from the main selected list, the petitioner came to be again selected and appointed.
Counsel submitted that the judgment passed at the Principal Seat, Jodhpur was in respect of a different controversy, as the candidate therein was
selected in both the merit/main lists.
I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
This Court finds that the termination of services of the petitioner had taken place due to reshuffling of the list by an order issued by the respondents on
13th May, 2015, and the petitioner in spite of his selection, came to be terminated due to the exercise of reshuffling undertaken by the RPSC.
This Court further finds that in the second reshuffling, name of the petitioner was again included in the reserve list and finally he has been selected and
given posting.
The placement of the petitioner in the reserve list does not make any difference, as long as, he is given appointment by the respondents after being
placed in the reserve list and finally given posting due to non joining of any candidate from the main select list.
The Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Niwasa Ram Vs. State & Ors. (supra) has also considered almost identical facts and has come to a
conclusion that if RPSC had suo moto decided to reshuffle the merit list again, the order of termination dt. 13th May, 2015 would become nonest since
the name of the petitioner was again reflected in the subsequent list prepared by the RPSC. The Court further recorded a finding that no fault can
be attributed to the petitioner nor did he obtain the said appointment by playing any fraud.
This Court also finds that reshuffling of the result in the instant case was undertaken by the RPSC and later on in the second reshuffling, name of the
petitioner is again included in the reserve list and he is further given appointment.
The petitioner cannot be said to have any role in such exercise which is undertaken by the respondents and no fault can be attributed to the petitioner.
Consequently, the present writ petition deserves to be allowed and services of the petitioner are required to be counted from the initial date of
appointment on the post of Teacher GradeII (Hindi).
Accordingly, the present writ petition stands allowed.