GIRDHAR KUMAR DADHITCH AND ANR. versus ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 585 
,, 
GIRDHAR KUMAR DADHITCH AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
ST ATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 388 of 2009) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.] 
• 
Service Law - Appointment - Appointment on ten posts 
of teacher held unconstitutional by Supreme Court with 
prospective effect - 8 candidates appointed prior to cut-off- c 
date - Claim of unsuccessful candidates for appointment to 
the vacant posts rejected holding that their case was covered 
by Supreme Court judgment - Candidates taking plea that 
the judgment not applicable to the vacancies remaining to be 
filled after the cut-off-date - Held: The Select List for the post D 
prepared in the year 1998 since expired after one year, no 
appointment could be made on the basis thereof after its 
expiry - Candidates not liable to be appointed. 
The writ petition was filed by the appellants on the 
E 
ground that the rules whereunder appointment to 10 
posts of Physical Education Teacher Grade-Ill, since held 
unconstitutional, they should be appointed to the post, 
because their position in merit list comes at serial Nos. 6 
,,l< 
and 9 respectively. 
F 
During pendency of the writ petition, the order 
holding the provision unconstitutional, was upheld in 
*Kai/ash Chand Sharma's vs. State _of Rajasthan and Ors. 
(2002) 6 SCC 662 by Supreme Court, but the same was 
given prospective effect I.e. w.e.f. 18-11-1999. 
G 
..-.. ·"I 
The writ petitions were cUsmissed by Single Judge 
of High Court as barred by limitation. Division Bench of 
High Court upheld the order stating that the case was 
585 
H 
586 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A covered by decision in *Kai/ash Chand Sharma's case. 
Hence the present appeal. 
In appeal to this court appellants contended that the 
case was not covered by *Kai/ash Chand Sharma's case 
8 as it covered the cases of only the employees appointed 
on or before 18.11.1999 and not to the vacancies 
remaining to be filled up thereafter, i.e. in 2003. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
c 
HELD: 1. The select list was prepared in the year 
1998, keeping in view the rules as they existed. The Rules 
enumerating grant of bonus marks might have been 
declared ultra vires but this Court in exercise of its 
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India 
0 though it fit to give a prospective effect thereto. It did so 
inter alia for the purpose of protecting the services of 
those teachers who had already been appointed and had 
been in service for a few years. Out of ten posts, eight 
teachers were appointed on or before 18th November, 
E 1999 which was the cut off date. [Para 15] [590-F-H; 591-
A] 
2. The select list would ordinarily remain valid for one 
year. There is no basis for appointments made in 2003 or 
subsequently. Whether the validity of the said select list 
F was extended or not is not known. Extension of select 
list must be done in accordance with law. Apart from a 
bald statement that the validity of the said select list had 
been extended, no document in support thereof has 
G 
H 
been placed before the Court. [Para 19] [591-E-F] 
State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Jagdish Chopra 2007 (8) 
sec 161, relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
2001 (8) sec 161 
Relied on 
Para 19 
GIRDHAR KUMAR DADHITCH AND ANR. v. STATE OF 
587 
RAJASTHAN AND ORS. 
~ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 388 
A 
, 
of 2009. 
From the Judgment and final Order dated 14.2.2006 of the 
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in D.B. Civil 
Special Appeal (W) No. 147 of 2006. 
B 
M.R. Calla, Mukul Kumar, Rishi Matoliya and P.O. Sharma 
+ 
for the Appellants. 
Navin Singh and Aruneshwar Gupta for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
5.8. SINHA, J.1. Leave granted. 
2. Interpretation of a decision of this Court in Kai/ash 
Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan and others, [(2002) 6 D 
sec 562 l is in question in this appeal which arises out of a 
judgment and order dated 14th February, 2006 passed by the 
High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan. Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in 
D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 147 of 2006. 
3. Indisputably an advertisement was issued on 9th August, 
E 
1998 for filling up 10 posts of Physical Education Teacher 
Grade-Ill. 10 Bonus marks were to be granted for candidates 
who were resident of a particular district, while 5 bonus marks 
;. 
to the candidates belonging to rural areas. 
F 
4. Validity and/or legality of the said provision for gra

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.