KALPANA SHARMA Vs. GOVERNMENT OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners by way of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have sought direction against the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioners on the post of Headmasters or on the equivalent posts.

(2.) As per the case of the petitioners, the respondent No.2-Commission had issued an advertisement dated 28.4.11 inviting applications for 2093 posts of Headmasters (Education) and equivalent posts. The corrigendum to the advertisement was issued on 19.8.11 and 9.9.11 respectively. The respondent No.2 thereafter issued fresh advertisement dated 17.2.12 (Annex.3), withdrawing the earlier advertisements, however clarifying that the candidates who had already applied earlier for the said posts need not apply afresh. The petitioners being qualified had applied for the said posts and had also appeared in the examination known as Headmaster(Secondary Education Department) Competitive Examination, 2012, held on 15.5.12. It appears that the result of the said examination was declared on 18.11.12 in which 2092 candidates were provisionally declared successful, and thereafter a waiting list of 1033 cndidates was prepared and published on 29.1.13. However, certain petitions having been filed before this court challenging the said list, the Single Bench in the writ petition being SBCWP No. 19453/12 and others directed the RPSC to prepare the select list afresh vide the common order dated 15.2.13. The said order passed by the Single Bench having been challenged before the Division Bench, vide Special Appeal being No. 387/13, the Division Bench allowed the said appeal and confirmed the meritlist prepared by the RPSC on 18.11.12. It appears that thereafter 166 candidates having been found to be ineligible from the said meritlist dated 18.11.12, a fresh list of 2092 candidates was prepared on 12.6.14. The Commission on such reshuffling prepared additional waiting list of 253 candidates after picking up the candidates from the earlier waiting list while preparing the said meritlist dated 12.6.14. The said list is on record at Annex.8. According to the petitioners, their names were included in the waiting lists prepared by the respondent No.2, and they were entitled to be appointed on the vacancies which had arisen on account of some of the successful candidates having either not joined, or they having been subsequently found to be ineligible.

(3.) It is sought to be submitted by the learned counsel Mr. M.C. Taylor for the petitioners that in absence of any rule, the validity of select list should be considered as one year. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision in case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Chopra, 2007 8 SCC 161. According to him, the life of waiting list being coterminus with the select list, the waiting list also would be valid for one year from 12.6.14. He further submitted that even if the validity of waiting list is considered to be six months, as per Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said Rules'), then also the petitioners having approached this court before the expiry of six months, would be entitled to the relief claimed. In this regard, he has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sheo Shyam & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, 2005 10 SCC 314. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of R.S. Mittal Vs. Union of India, 1995 2 SLR 437 he submitted that inaction on the part of the respondents in not operating the waiting list for filling up the vacancies without any justifiable reason deserves to be set right. Placing reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court in case of Dr. Uma Kant Vs. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain & Ors., 1991 AIR(SC) 2272, he submitted that the persons kept in the reserved list are entitled for appointment, if the vacancies are caused during the validity period of the reserved list.