Ganpati And Ors vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

These writ petitions are directed against order dated 15.08.2018 (Annexure-10), whereby, the Committee came to the conclusion that the selections of the petitioners were liable to be cancelled.

The Gram Panchayat, Farrod started selection process for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Sahayak and the meeting of the SDMC was conducted on 18.02.2017, wherein, a total of 36 candidates filled in their application forms; petitioners were awarded 15 marks and were selected alongwith one Dayal Ram Meghwal; pursuant to the selection, the petitioners joined their duties.

On 30.09.2017 a communication was issued by the Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Nagaur directing to remove all Gram Panchayat Sahayak in compliance of order passed in S.B.C.W.P. No. 1032/2017 : Sunita Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, decided at Jaipur Bench and, as such, petitioners were also removed.

The said action was challenged by filing writ petitions, wherein, it was directed that the Committee constituted pursuant to the directions in the case of Sunita Sharma (supra) shall decide the representations of the candidates after awarding them adequate opportunity of hearing by way of speaking and reasoned order.

By order dated 27.04.2018 the Committee passed the order upholding the cancellation.

The order dated 27.04.2018 was again challenged by the petitioners by filing writ petitions, which were decided in light of judgment in the case of Malu Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. : S.B.C.W.P. No. 4374/2018, wherein, it was directed to decide the petitioners' grievances after giving them opportunity of hearing.

Pursuant to the said order, the petitioners filed detailed representations seeking to justify the selection. However, by impugned order dated 15.08.2018 again the cancellation was upheld by holding that no new facts were put forward.

Whereafter the order of termination in case of Ganpati has been issued on 24.01.2019.

It is, inter alia, submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the Committee was not justified in passing the order impugned, whereby, the selections of the petitioners have been cancelled. It was submitted that earlier the order was passed cancelling the selection, which order was set aside by this Court and the respondents were directed to pass a fresh order. However, identical order has been passed resulting in not only violation of directions issued by this Court but grave injustice to the petitioners.

Learned counsel for the petitioners in the case of Ganpati with reference to the additional affidavit, wherein, copy of the minutes of SDMC meeting were produced, sought to emphasize that everything has been done transparently and fairly and, therefore, there was no reason to question the validity of selection.

Further submissions have been made that the petitioners were eligible and meritorious candidates and were rightly selected by the SDMC and, as such, there was no reason for cancellation of petitioners' selection and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners and have perused the material available on record.

A perusal of the order dated 15.08.2018 (Annexure-10) in the case of Ganpati indicates that the Committee after noticing the facts came to the following conclusion:-

"इस संबंध में एसडीएमसी द्वारा लिये गये प्रस्ताव व मानदण्ड, रेकर्ड तथा प्राप्त शिकायत का अवलोकन, परीक्षण एंव मनन किया गया। एसडीएमसी द्वारा निर्धारित मान दण्ड के अनुसार प्रक्रिया आयोजित नहीं कर प्रक्रिया में चयन का किसी भी प्रकार आधार नहीं रखा गया। एसडीएमसी द्वारा अपने चहेतो का चयन किया गया तथा अनुभव होते हुए भी अंक नहीं जोड़े गये है। चयन प्रक्रिया में कोई पारदर्शिता नहीं अपनाई गई।

याचिकार्थी द्वारा प्रस्तुत अभ्यावेदन एवं एसडीएमसी की चयन प्रक्रिया के सम्बंध में प्राप्त रेकर्ड एवं प्राप्त शिकायत पर विचार करने के पश्चात जिला स्तरीय समिति ने निष्कर्ष में पाया कि एसडीएमसी द्वारा किसी प्रकार का चयन का आधार नहीं रखा गया। भर्ती प्रक्रिया में पूर्णतया भेदभावपूर्ण तरीके से की गई तथा किसी प्रकार की कोई पारदर्शिता नहीं बरती गई, एसडीएमसी द्वारा अपने चहेतों का चयन किया गया। जिसके आधार पर पूर्व चयन को जिला स्तरीय परिवेदना निस्तारण समिति के निर्णय दिनांक 26.09.2017 के द्वारा निरस्त किया गया है, जो कि सही किया गया था।

अतः माननीय उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा याचिका संख्या 6749/18 में पारित निर्णय दिनांक 15.05.18 की पालना में सुनवाई का पर्याप्त अवसर देने व सुनने के पश्चात् कोई नया तथ्य प्रस्तुत नहीं हुआ है। अतः याचिकार्थी श्री गणपती पंचायत सहायक, ग्राम पंचायत फड़रोद का चयन निरस्त किया जाकर अभ्यावेदन अस्वीकार कर खारिज किया जाता है।"

Similar order has been passed in case of Ajay Pal Khoja as well.

The reasons indicated by the Committee has been that the SDMC while selecting the petitioners did not provide any basis for selection, the selections have been made arbitrary and despite having experience, the marks have not been added. The selection process has not been transparent and, therefor, the cancellation of the petitioners' selection on 26.09.2017 was justified.

A perusal of the additional affidavit and the document annexed with the additional affidavit indicates that a table has been prepared indicating the particulars of the candidates, the marks obtained by them at Senior Secondary, their age, experience and then marks have been awarded. Admittedly no criteria for awarding of marks was pre-decided/has been indicated by the SDMC.

While four candidates Ajay Pal Khoja, Dayal Ram Meghwal, Deepa Parikh and Ganpati have been straightaway awarded 15 marks, one candidate Hanuman Ram has been awarded 10 marks and rest all the candidates have not been awarded any marks. For candidate Deepa Parikh it has been indicated that as her marks were equal to the candidate Ganpati, Ganpati being elder in age, she was selected.

In case of Ajay Pal Khoja he had 44.77% marks and experience of 5 years and 9 months. In case of Dayal Ram Meghwal he had 43% marks and 5 years 4 months' experience. Hanuman Ram had 50.15% marks and 5 years' experience and he has been awarded 10 marks.

From the material it cannot be deciphered as to what was the criteria, by which, the marks have been awarded to the candidates as apparently Hanuman Ram, who had 50.15% marks though had higher marks compared to Ajay Pal Khoja and Dayal Ram Meghwal, who had 44.77% and 43% marks respectively, has been awarded 10 marks only.

The very fact that the SDMC had not published any criteria before holding the meeting of SDMC and/or before awarding the marks or anytime thereafter, itself was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the award of marks have been arbitrary and the same cannot be sustained merely because now the petitioners by way of their response before the Committee/this Court seek to justify their selection by claiming themselves to be better candidates than all others.

The claim of the petitioners may be justified, however, the same was required to be judged by the SDMC based on a pre-decided criteria and applying the same universally to all the candidates and not by awarding 15 marks to four candidates and 10 marks to one candidate and not awarding any marks to any of the rest 31 candidates, for which also no reason has been indicated.

The attempt made by learned counsel for the petitioners to claim that if for any reason the criteria has not been indicated still the marks have been given under a criteria, the assumption based arguments made by counsel cannot be countenanced.

Much emphasis was laid by learned counsel for the petitioners that the order impugned dated 15.08.2018 is a reproduction of earlier conclusion drawn, which was set aside by this Court, also has no substance, inasmuch as, the facts are undisputed that the selection has taken place without any criteria whatsoever and once the selection has taken place without any pre-declared/pre-determined criteria, the same is sufficient for coming to the conclusion that the selection in absence of the same by itself stands vitiated and, consequently, merely because the same order has been passed/conclusion reiterated is not sufficient to interfere with the order impugned.

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.