Rajasthan HC Denies Relief To Government Post Appointees Who Were Terminated After Revised Results
The Rajasthan High Court denied relief to appointed candidates for the post of livestock assistant who were terminated after one year of appointment as they were found ineligible after the declaration of revised results.
The Court said that the appointment letter made it unequivocally and categorically clear that the appointment shall be contingent and/or conditional to any subsequent litigation before the Court.
The Court was hearing a Writ seeking direction to respondents to continue the petitioners on the post of Livestock Assistant in pursuance of appointment orders.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain observed, “…this Court deems it appropriate to dismiss the instant petition, for the following reasons, namely:- 10.1. That the appointment letter, as issued to the petitioners in pursuance of the erstwhile merit list, marked as Annexure-6 dt. 13.10.2022, made it unequivocally and categorically clear that such appointment shall be contingent and/or conditional to any subsequent litigation before the Court. Therefore, the appointment conferred vide letter dt. 13.10.2022 was not absolute, being subject to the caveat of any further litigation before the Court.”
Advocate Ram Pratap Saini appeared for the Appellant and AGC Priyanka Pareek appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
It is the case of the Petitioners that the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) published an advertisement for Livestock Assistant posts. The petitioners appeared for the exam and were selected based on the final result and served efficiently for nearly a year. However, a challenge to the answer key led to a Division Bench ruling, and the Supreme Court upheld the decision necessitating a revised result. Consequently, the RSSB withdrew 52 candidates' recommendations, and the petitioners were terminated. The Petitioners argued that their services should not be discontinued despite the revised merit list and that they should be adjusted against future vacancies if necessary. It was also contended that other candidates' claims should not outweigh the petitioners' established rights. The Petitioners sought the Court to allow their continued employment.
The Court said that the appointment letter created no vested right of appointment in favour of the petitioners. According to the Court, rather such a right was contingent upon further litigation before the Court coupled with the expiry of the period of probation.
The Court said that between the selected candidates as per the revised result and the petitioners, lay the candidature of 285 other candidates who are placed higher on merit than the petitioners. Therefore, the adjustment shall be discriminatory to the rights of the said 285 candidates who are more meritorious than the petitioners.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Petitions.
Cause Title: Brijsundar Regar v. State Of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:25538)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Ram Pratap Saini, Adv. Komal Kumari Giri, Adv. Bajrang Sepat, Adv. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Apporva Agarwal
Adv. Rishiraj Maheshwari and Adv. Yashraj Kumawat
Respondent: AGC Priyanka Pareek, AGC Nalin G. Narain, Adv. Arpit Jain and Adv. Manish Bhardwaj