LexSTATE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS. versus JAGDISH CHOPRA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
l-
STA TE OF RAJASTHAN AND ORS.
A
v.
JAGDISH CHOPRA
AUGUST 30, 2007
(S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.)
B
Service Law:
Rajasthan Education Subordinate Service Rules, 1971-Rule 9 (3)-
Recruitment under-Candidate applied for. the post of teacher and pf aced at C
serial no. JO in select list for a particular year-Non-joining of candidate
at serial no 8-Vacant post carried forward to next year-Candidate at
serial no JO in select list of previous year applied but not appointed-Single
Judge of High Court holding that candidate had no legal right to be
appointed-Set aside by Division Bench-On appeal, held: Single Judge was D
right in holding that candidate has no legal right to be appointed-However,
during the pendency of SLP, the State appointed the candidate not due to
his merit but due to the orders of Division Bench-Thus, in exercise of
jurisdiction under Article 142 and long pendency of the matter, appointment
to be continued-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 142.
In the State ofRajasthan, teachers were employed on yearly basis and
vacancies for each year was determined separately. In 1995-96, vacancies
arose and 19 posts were to be filled up by teachers (physical education).
Respondent applied for the post and his name was at serial No.10 of the select
E
. >-
list prepared. Candidate at serial No.8 in the merit list did not join and the F
said vacant post was carried forward to the next year. Respondent applied for
the same post in the said year and could not be appointed since he was placed
at serial No.23 in the merit list. Aggrieved, respondent filed writ petition.
The Single Judge of High Court dismissed the petition holding that the
respondent had no legal right to be appointed since the validity of the merit
list had expired. Division Bench set aside the order of Single Judge without G
deciding whether the se~t list has remained valid or not. Hence the present1
appeal
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court
599
H
600
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2007] 9 S.C.R.
A
HELD: 1.1. Recruitment for teachers in the State of Rajasthan is
governed by the statutory rules. Therefore, all recruitments are required to
be made in terms thereof. Although Rule 9(3) of the Rajasthan Education
Subordinate Service Rules, 1971 does not specifically provide for the period
for which the merit list shall remain valid but the intent of the legislature is
B absolutely clear as vacancies have to be determined .only once in a year.
Vacancies which arose in the subsequent years could be filled up from the
select list prepared in the previous year and not in other manner. Even
otherwise, in absence of any rule, ordinary period of validity of select list should
be one year. The Single Judge of the High Court was correct in holding that
the respondent has no legal right to be appointed.
C
[Paras 7 and 8) (603-D, E; 604-A)
Shankarasan Dash v. Union of India, {1991) 2 SCR 567 and Asha Kaul
(Mrs.) and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors., (1993) 2 SCC 577,
relied on.
D
State of Bihar and Ors. v. Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (2006) 9 SCALE
549; K. Jayamohan v. State of Kera/a and Anr., [1997) 5 SCC 170; Munna
Roy v. Union of India and Ors., (2000) 9 SCC 283; All India SC and ST
Employees' Association and Anr. v. A. Arthur Jeen and Ors., (2001) 6 SCC
380; Food Corporation of India and Ors. v. Bhanu Lodh and Ors., [2005) 3
SCC 618 and Pitta Naveen Kumar and Ors. v. Raja Narasaiah Zangiti and
E Ors., (2006) 10 SCC.261, referred to.
1.2. The Division Bench was not at all justified in directing grant of
service benefits to the responden_t from the date on which the appointed
candidate at serial No.9 in the merit list ought to have joined the post. Such
F a direction is wholly unwarranted. However, the impugned judgment cannot
--{ .
be set aside because of the fact that the· State has appointed the respondent
not by reason of his merit in the select list but by reason of the orders of the
High Court during the pendency of this Special Leave Petition. Furthermore
even a stay of further proceedings in the contempt petition has been passed
by this Court. Therefore, in exercise of jurisdiction un~er Article 142 of the
G Constitution of India and in view of the fact that matter is pending for a long
time it is directed that the, respondent may be continued as ifhe was appointed
on and from the date he joined the service. (Para 11) (605-G; 606-A-C)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil AppExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.