Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Vipin Sharma And Ors

Mohammad Rafiq, J

There is delay of 12 days in filing of the appeal. Application No. 784/2019 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the appeal.

This appeal has been preferred by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'the RPSC') against the judgment dated 22.05.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition filed by Respondent No. 1, Vipin Sharma has imposed cost of Rs. 25,000/- upon the appellant-RPSC to be deposited with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of three months from the date of passing the order.

Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the delay in recommending the name of Respondent No. 1 for appointment took place because the appellant had written to the State Government to verify the status of Respondent No. 1 as to whether he was eligible for appointment under Ministerial Employee category. Since at the time of recommendation of the name of successful candidates Respondent No. 1 was working on the post of Tax Assistant, it was not clear whether he would fall in the category of Ministerial Employee and therefore clarification was sought from the Commercial Taxes Department on 27.09.2017. Response to the aforesaid letter was received by the appellant vide letter dated 31.10.2017 from the Commercial Taxes Department that the post of Tax Assistant does not fall in the category of Ministerial Employee. Subsequently, clarification was sought from the Department of Personnel vide letter dated 04.01.2018 mentioning therein that at the time of submission of the application form, i.e. 15.05.2015, Respondent No. 1 was in the category of Ministerial Employee but now when he is not in the category of Ministerial Employee, whether he would be entitled to be appointed under that category.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and supported the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court.

Learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment has taken the view that status of an employee has to be considered on the last date of receipt of the application form for appointment and rejected the plea set up by the appellant that the relevant date for consideration of the status would be the date on which recommendation of the name of the successful candidate was to be made. Learned Single Judge, while relying on the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Manju Bala Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 463/2017 decided on 05.10.2017 held that eligibility for appointment to a post advertised for recruitment is to be ascertained with reference to the last date of submitting the application form and not with reference to the declaration of the result of an examination.

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, this Court is inclined to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of this Court. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has made alternative prayer for waiver of the cost imposed by the learned Single Judge.

Having regard to the nature of the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant, we deem it appropriate to reduce the cost of Rs. 25,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-, which shall be deposited by the appellant with Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within three months from today. Considering that the appellant-RPSC till date has not recommended name of Respondent No. 1 to the Government for appointment, it is to recommend the name of Respondent No. 1 to the Government for appointment within fortnight.

Appeal is allowed in part with the aforesaid direction.

Stay Application No. 12546/2019 stands disposed of.