AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arun Bhansali, J
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner requiring the respondents to issue fresh waiting list, operate the same and give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Helper-II pursuant to the advertisement no. 2/2018-19.
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that an advertisement No. 2/2018-19 qua the recruitment on the post of Helper-II was issued by Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited and applications were invited for the purpose. The petitioner having requisite qualification applied pursuant to the advertisement and appeared in the written competitive examination. The result was declared, wherein, the petitioner was declared pass and secured 84 marks. The respondents issued list of candidates one and a half times of total vacancies advertised and called them for document verification for appointment to the post of Helper-II. Whereafter, the final cut off marks of selected Helper-II against 1414 vacancies was published (Annex.5), wherein, for general category the cut off was 85 marks and date of birth was 23/4/1995.
It is indicated that several candidates, who were called for document verification and selected, resigned/did not join, however, the respondents did not operate the waiting list. The petitioner filed S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 6415/2020 for issuing and operating the waiting list, wherein, notices were issued. Whereafter, department issued the waiting list and called selected candidates for counseling vide Annex.6.
Submissions were made that the respondents selected one Sunder Lal Saini in the unreserved category and accorded him place of posting at Jhalawar, however, the said candidate did not join the duty and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get appointment on the said post, which remained vacant on account of non-joining of said Sunder Lal Saini.
The petitioner filed representation with the respondents indicating that several posts were still lying vacant and the same deserves to be filled up by the petitioner and similarly placed candidates, however, nothing has been done by the respondents.
Based on the above submissions, prayer as indicated hereinbefore has been made.
A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents. It is inter alia indicated that the advertisement was issued on 7/9/2018, the examination was conducted w.e.f. 16/12/2018 to 3/1/2019 and the result was declared on 1/8/2019. After completion of process of document verification, orders for appointment in favour of selected candidates were issued and first order of appointment was issued on 7/11/2019 in favour of 1389 candidates, whereafter, qua non-joining of candidates further orders for appointment were issued on 18/2/2020, 3/6/2020 and 15/7/2020 from the reserved panel, wherein, the date of joining in the appointment order dated 15/7/2020 was 31/7/2020, which was completion of one year from the date of declaration of result i.e. 1/8/2019.
It is submitted that in light of clause 10 of the recruitment procedure approved by the Board of Directors, the reserve list was to remain in operation for 12 months from the date of declaration of result. A copy of the recruitment procedure has been filed as Annex.R/1.
It is submitted that the last appointment order was issued on 15/7/2020 with cut off marks in the unreserved category as 84 marks with date of birth as 23/4/1995 and date of joining as 31/7/2020. Though the petitioner obtained 84 marks, however, as his date of birth was 18/7/1995, he was not selected for appointment as he was younger to the last appointee and as the life of the reserve list came to an end on 31/7/2020, the same thereafter could not be operated. Further particulars regarding the cut off marks qua each category has also been indicated. It was prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the respondents were not justified in declining to operate the reserve list and as apparently the petitioner is at no.1 in the reserve list of his category, the action of the respondents in not offering the appointment is not justified.
Learned counsel for the respondents reiterated the submissions as indicated in reply that as the reserve list came to an end on 31/7/2020, which was the last date for joining of the candidates, even if one of the candidates, who was offered appointment on 15/7/2020 did not join, the appointment was rightly not offered to the petitioner and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
The respondents have filed an exhaustive reply to the writ petition giving out the details of entire recruitment process and has pointed out that as the reserve list in terms of clause 10 had expired on 31/7/2020, the petitioner is not entitled for selection.
No rejoinder to the reply has been filed.
Clause 10 of the order dated 16/8/2018 containing the procedure for filling up the post of Helper-II inter alia reads as under:
"10. Reserve List:
The name of candidates not offered appointment shall be kept in a panel which shall be in operation for twelve months from the date of declaration of result."
The result was declared on 1/8/2019 and, thereafter, based on the marks obtained by the candidates, the selections took place and for the post which remained vacant either on account of the fact that the candidates did not appear for document verification and/or did not join, the reserve panel was operated from time to time, last such list of selected candidates based on the reserve list was issued on 15/7/2020 with the last date of joining as 31/7/2020. The fact that one of the candidates in the selected list dated 15/7/2020 did not join, the reserve list based on the said non-joining could only be operated after 31/7/2020 which was the last date of joining of the candidates and as on 31/7/2020 the reserve list in terms of clause 10 of procedure had expired, the respondents were justified in thereafter not operating the reserve list and not offering the appointment to the petitioner. Action of the respondents in this regard, in view of the above circumstances, cannot be faulted.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.