Continuous Service Of Employee Cannot Be Terminated Only On Ground Of Revision Of Cut-Off Marks When There Is No Fraud, Mischief Or Misrepresentation: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court reiterated that once the persons are selected and appointed as per the merit list and there is no fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide on their part, then their continuous services cannot be terminated only on the ground of revision in cut off marks.
The Court directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to continue the service of an individual at the post of lecturer and at the same time appoint another on the post of lecturer to settle a dispute that arose after the government relaxed “good academic record” criteria for SC / ST and PH candidates.
The Court was hearing two Writ Petitions with similar facts having implications for each other.
The bench of Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur mentioned the decision in Neeraj Kumari Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and quoted, “it is a settled proposition of law, as per the afore-quoted judgments, that once the persons are selected and appointed as per the merit list and there is no fraud, mischief, misrepresentation or mala fide on their part, as is with the petitioners in the present case, then their continuous services cannot be terminated only on the ground of revision in cut off marks, whereby they were sought to be ousted from the employment in question, that too at a quite belated stage, and thus, the petitioners are suitable to hold the posts in question.”
Advocate Varsha Bissa appeared for the Appellant and DGC Pukhraj Suthar appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
In the present case, the Petitioner Gauri Shankar Jinger applied for the post of College Lecturer (Philosophy) but his candidature was rejected for not meeting the "good academic record" criteria. After the State Government relaxed this requirement for SC/ST and PH candidates, his case was reconsidered, and he was recommended for the post. The other Petitioner Jhanwar Ram, who was the last candidate selected for the same position received a Show Cause Notice which led him to file a Writ Petition. He secured a stay on the notice. Despite the recommendation, Jinger was not appointed. Hence, the present Writ Petition.
The Court observed, “The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also a Court of equity. It is not only within its power but also the duty of the High Court while exercising such a power to advance the ends of justice and to uproot injustice.”
The Court said that while granting relief, the High Court is expected to balance equities by passing an appropriate order that justice may demand and equities may project. “Courts of equity should go much further, both to give and refuse relief in order to better serve the ends of justice. The granting of relief or withholding it would depend upon considerations of justice, equity and good conscience.”, the Court added.
Keeping in mind the fact that the vacancies are available with the RPSC, the Court said that the ends of justice will be met if the appointment of petitioner-Jhanwar Ram is protected by continuing him in the service on the post of College Lecturer (Philosophy) and a direction is issued to the respondents for appointment of petitioner-Gauri Shankar Jinger on the post of College Lecturer (Philosophy), whose name has been recommended by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
Finally, the Court quashed and set aside the show cause notice and allowed the Writ Petition of the Petitioner-Jhanwar Ram and also of Gauri Shankar Jinger.
Cause Title: Gauri Shankar Jinger v. State of Rajasthan (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:36474)
Appellant: Adv. Varsha Bissa and Adv. Prakash Vyas
Respondent: DGC Pukhraj Suthar, Adv. Falgun Buch, Adv. Gopalkrishna Chhangani and Adv. Simram Mehta
