(Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.)
State of Rajasthan ________________________________ Appellant
v.
Kiran Meena and Anr. __________________________ Respondent(s)
Civil Appeal No. 3082 of 2017 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5779 of 2015), decided on February 21, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises out of Judgment and order dated 5th December, 2014 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench, in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 878 of 2014.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. There were ten vacancies reserved for the ST Woman candidates, out of which three were for ST (Tribal Sub Plan) (which was a sub-category of ST). Against the said vacancies, seven persons in the category of ST, senior to the respondent, were offered appointment. Three persons did not join. The respondent claimed appointment against the vacancy which arose on account of non-joining of candidate. This plea has been upheld by the High Court.
5. Mr. S.S. Shamshery, learned counsel Additional Advocate General appearing for the appellant-State, submitted that under Rule 20(2) of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 if a person does not join, the vacancy has to be treated as a fresh vacancy. The said rule is as follows:
“20. Selection by the Government or by the Appointing Authority:—
(1) xxx xxx xxx
(2) If a person, selected under sub-rule (1) above and appointment to a Post Service concerned in accordance with the relevant Service Rules, against the vacancies of a particular year for which the Combined Competitive Examination was conducted by the Commission in accordance with these Rules, does not join on the post offered to him/her or has resigned or expired in any subsequent year, in that event the said vacancy shall be treated as fresh vacancy.”
6. In view of above, the vacancy which arose on account of non-joining of the candidate, could not be offered to the respondent. The same had to be taken as fresh vacancy. The said vacancy is said to have been filled up in subsequent selection. From the pleadings and the order of the High Court, we do not find any provision for the waiting list.
7. In view of above, the impugned order is not sustainable. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. No costs.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 5779/2015
State of Rajasthan ________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Kiran Meena and Anr _____________________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 21/02/2017 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Adarsh Kumar Goel and Uday Umesh Lalit, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery, AAG
Mr. Amit Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj, Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Satish Chand Gupta, Adv.
Mr. S.D. Khaspuria, Adv.
Mr. Shantanu Jagtawat, Adv.
Mr. D.P. Singh Yadav, Adv.
Mr. Satish Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Surya Kant, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
8. Leave granted.
9. In terms of the signed order, the appeal is allowed.
———
