MOHAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A large number of writ petitions have been filed challenging the process of selection, i.e. constitution of the selection committee and giving preference to the local residents as 'Shiksha Sahyogi' in Rajiv Gandhi Swaran Jayanti Pathshalas under the Policy framed by the respondent -State vide order dated 23.4.1999 (Annx. 1). For the purpose of arguments, writ petition No. 2171/1999, Motion Lal v. State of Rajsthan and Ors., is taken to be a leading case.

(2.) PETITIONER claims that he was better qualified than respondent No. 6 but ignoring his claim, the appointment had been given to her vide order dated 27.5.1999 (Annx. 8). Hence this petition for quashing her appointment and giving appointment to the petitioner.

(3.) EVEN if the Government Order has been issued for any institution under a particular project funded by the Central Government and it has any element of public employment, the aforesaid clauses of the Circular (Annx. 1) would be violative of Clause (2) of Article 16, which prohibits any kind of discrimination on the ground of residence. Moreover, another substantial question of law involved herein is: if the post of Shiksha Sahyogi involves any element of public employment, whether appointment can be made without advertising the post as it will be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh and Ors. 1992 4 SCC 118, wherein, in para 47, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that any employment in public office without issuing advertisement, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as it violates the rights of other eligible persons to be considered for the said post. The same view has been reiterated in Prabhat Kumar Sharma v. State of U.P. and Ors. 1996 10 SCC 62, and J.A.S. Inter College, Khurja, U.P. v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1996 (10) SCC 71.