ALKA AGRAWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State-respondents declined the representation of the petitioner vide communication/order dated 17th August, 2011, of which the petitioner is aggrieved of, and therefore, has instituted the present writ application praying for the following relief(s):

(2.) Shorn off unnecessary details the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised herein are that the petitioner in response to an advertisement dated 2nd August, 2008, issued by the respondent - Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short 'respondent-Commission'), inviting application from the eligible candidates for appointment on 26 posts of Teacher Grade-I in Hindi subject, submitted her candidature for consideration. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that as a consequence of recruitment process, she was declared successful and her name found place at serial number 1 in the waiting list drawn by the respondent-Commission. The recommendation for appointment of 26 successful candidates in the main list was forwarded by the respondent-Commission to the State-respondents on 20th August, 2010. The State-respondents issued necessary direction for verification of credential of the 26 successful candidates in the main list, including verification of the documents on 27th August, 2010. The required reports, after verification, were received up to 1st February, 2011. Offer of appointments were issued to the 26 successful candidates with effect from 5th January, 2011 up to 3rd February, 2011. The joining period allowed to the last candidate (Manor Singh Charan), was up to 23rd February, 2011. It is further contended that out of 26 selected candidates, 8 candidates did join, still the petitioner was offered appointment despite her name found place at serial number 1 in the waiting list. On institution of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7676 of 2011; a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6th July, 2011, taking note of the detailed representation already served, directed the petitioner to address a representation and the respondent-Commission was directed to decide the same within one month from the date of its receipt. In case, the petitioner felt still aggrieved, liberty was reserved to her to avail of proper course in accordance with law.

(3.) In response to the notice of the writ application, the State-respondents have filed their counter-affidavit while supporting the impugned order declining appointment to the petitioner though she stood at serial number 1 in the reserve list for the reserve list was valid only for six months from the date of recommendation of the main list by the respondent-Commission. According to the respondent-Commission, the recommendation was made on 20th August, 2010, and therefore, the period of six months, being validity period of the waiting list was over on 19th February, 2011. The requisition of the State Government dated 17th March, 2011, which was received for the first time on 29th March, 2011, in the office of the respondent-Commission, was declined stating that any recommendation, beyond the period of six months would be contrary to the rules.