Skip to content


Hari Mohan Gupta Vs. State of Rajasthan and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 526 of 1971
Judge
Reported in1975WLN(UC)252
AppellantHari Mohan Gupta
RespondentState of Rajasthan and ors.
DispositionPetition allowed
Cases ReferredInterview Board In K.K. Bhatla v. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Excerpt:
.....by all the members of the commission and it is not a valid list.;there is no doubt that the list of selected candidates, which was prepared as a result of the interview by two members of the commission along with the experts and a departmental representative, was neither placed before nor it was approved by all the members of the commission, except those who were members of the interview board.;it must be held that the responsibility for preparing the list of selected candidates, which lay upon the entire commission was not discharged by it in the present case & the list, which was prepared by the members of the commission along with two experts and a departmental representative constituting an interview board, could not assume the status of a list, of selected candidates..........bhatla v. the rajasthan public service commission 1972 rlw 22 it was held by this court that the list prepared by the interview board did not automatically become the recommendation of the commission and in order to assume that character it was necessary that the entire commission should have considered the list of selected candidates prepared by some of the members of the commission and should have given its sanction or approval in respect of such list. the present case is fully governed by the decision of this court in k.k bhatia's case 1972 rlw 22. it is not the case of the respondents that the commission had delegated the power of preparing the list of selected candidates to one or more of its members at the relevant time. therefore, following the decision in k.k. bhatia's case.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Engineer (Survey) by the Director of Mines and Geology, Rajasthan vide order dated May 5, 1970 in a temporary capacity. The services of the petitioner were extended upto February 28, 1971 by the order of the State Government dated August 26, 1970. He was re-appointed as Assistant Mining Engineer in a temporary capacity by the order of the State Government dated February 22, 1971 for a period of six months or till a candidate duly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (here in after referred to as 'the Commission') took over charge of the post, whichever was earlier.

2. The Commission in the mean time invited applications for appointment to the posts of Assistant Mining Engineer. The case of the petitioner is that only two members of the Commission along with two experts, besides a departmental representative, interviewed the candidates for the posts of Assistant Mining Engineer and selected respondents Nos. 3 to 3 for the said posts. The petitioner's grievance is that the two members of the Commission, who interviewed the candidates along with the experts and the departmental nominee, prepared a list of selected candidates and the list so prepared by them was not placed before nor was approved by all the members of the Commission However, the list so prepared by the Interview Board, which included only two members of the Commission, was sent to the State Government recommending the names of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and on the basis of the aforesaid recommendation, the State Government appointed respondents Nos. 3 to 6 as Assistant Mining Engineers on probation for a period of two years by its order dated February 18, 1971. On the basis of the very same recommendation, the respondents Nos. 7 and 8 were also appointed as Assistant Mining Engineers by the order of the State Government dated April 26, 1971 on probation for a period of two years. The petitioner's further grievance is that as a consequence of the appointment of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 as Assistant Mining Engineers, the petitioner's services were terminated by the order of the State Government dated April 29, 1971 with effect from June 1, 1971. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the selection of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 was illegal and void, in view of the facts that the result of the interview was not placed before nor was approved by the entire Commission and that the provisions of Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Mines and Geology Service Rules were not complied with by the Commission.

3. The respondents have not contested the fact that the list of selected candidates was prepared by only two members of the Commission along with the departmental nominee and the experts and that the same was neither placed before nor was approved by all the members of the Commission before it was sent to the State Government. It has also been admitted that the services of the petitioner were terminated in order to make 100m for respondents Nos. 3 to 8, who were selected by the Commission in the aforesaid manner for the posts of Assistant Mining Engineer. The contention of the learned Additional Government Advocate, however, is that any member of the Commission was competent to represent the Commission at the time of the interview for the selection of the candidates for the posts of Assistant Mining Engineers and that it was not necessary that the list of selected candidates should have been approved by all the members of the Commission.

4. Thus there is no doubt that the list of selected candidates, which was prepared as a result of the interview by two members of the Commission along with the experts and a departmental representative, was neither placed before nor it was approved by all the members of the Commission, except those who were members of the Interview Board In K.K. Bhatla v. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission 1972 RLW 22 it was held by this court that the list prepared by the Interview Board did not automatically become the recommendation of the Commission and in order to assume that character it was necessary that the entire Commission should have considered the list of selected candidates prepared by some of the members of the Commission and should have given its sanction or approval in respect of such list. The present case is fully governed by the decision of this court in K.K Bhatia's case 1972 RLW 22. It is not the case of the respondents that the Commission had delegated the power of preparing the list of selected candidates to one or more of its members at the relevant time. Therefore, following the decision in K.K. Bhatia's case 1972 RLW 22 it must be held that the responsibility for preparing the list of selected candidates, which lay upon the entire Commission was not discharged by it in the present case and the list, which was prepared by two members of the Commission along with two experts and a departmental representative constituting an Interview Board, could not assume the status of a list of selected candidates prepared by the Commission. The list so prepared by the Interview Board could not be considered to be a valid list of selected candidates prepared by the Commission in accordance with the Service Rules.

5. In view of the foregoing discussion, the above mentioned list of selected candidates forwarded by the office of the Commission to the State Government as also the appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 on the posts of Assistant Mining Engineer, on the basis of the aforesaid selection, are set aside. As the services of the petitioner were terminated by the State Government on account of the appointments made on the basis of the list received from the Commission, the order of termination of the services of the petitioner dated April 29, 1971 (Bx 4) is also set aside.

6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed as indicated above. However in the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //