Nidhi Paliwal @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Civil Misc. Application No.585/2018:

For the reasons stated in the application delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

Special Appeals (Writ) No.1060/2018 and 1061/2018:

Overlooking the defects notified by the Registry we have heard learned counsel for the appellants.

Issue relates to an advertisement issued on 31.05.2008 inviting applications to fill up the posts of Prabodhak.

It so transpired that some candidates who were lower in merit were given appointment and when this was detected disciplinary proceedings were

issued against the District Education Officer but on account of his death the proceedings came to an end. Simultaneously candidates who were lower

in merit and who were offered appointment and had joined were informed that their appointments were cancelled. Those candidates have filed writ

petitions in this Court in which notices have been issued and stay has been granted in their favour.

As regards the appellants they filed a writ petition in the year 2016 making a grievance that people lower in merit have been appointed and thus

prayer made was to offer them appointment.

Refusing to grant relief reasons were given by the learned Single Judge in paragraph 7 of the impugned order which reads as under:

“7. After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, this Court is of the opinion that only possible ground for the challenge

at belated stage was that if the persons lessor meritorious than the petitioner have been given appointment which could be a valid reason for contesting

the litigation but with a specific reply from the respondent that any appointment made below the merit of the petitioner was in fact a fraud being

committed by a certain District Education Officer and already for the same, a FIR has been lodged and the persons below the merit of the petitioner

have been terminated. This Court is also of the opinion that parity cannot be claimed by any person wherever any illegal action has led to a certain

appointment. The parity in this case against the lessor meritorious candidates could not have been maintained as it was an illegal act of the

respondents, for which a FIR has already been filed and requisite termination order has been passed against those candidates subject to the litigation

going on. Thus, with the parity ground going away, this Court is not inclined to grant any interference in the recruitment process initiated in the 2008

for the post of Prabodhak as the process is long back over and all the posts stand filled. Thus, no interference is called for, hence, the present writ

petitions are dismissed.â€​

Learned counsel for the appellants argues that as long as persons lower in the merit continued to serve, the appellants would have a right to press

for the relief claimed for. The argument is noted and rejected for the reason the respondents have cancelled the illegal appointments but the

candidates who were effected have filed writ petitions and because of judicial intervention there is a stay operating in their favour.

For the same post two people cannot be appointed.

Dismissing the appeals we simply observe that if the appellants were to seek intervention in the writ petitions filed by those candidates whose

appointments were withdrawn on the ground that the District Education Officer committed a fraud, the said applications for impleadment would be

decided by the learned Single Judge as per law.