Skip to content


Banshi Dhar Bohra and ors. Vs. the State of Rajasthan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectService
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberS.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos. 358, 362 and 1527 of 1971
Judge
Reported in1975WLN(UC)345
AppellantBanshi Dhar Bohra and ors.
RespondentThe State of Rajasthan
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredK.K. Bhatia v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission
Excerpt:
rajasthan mines & geological subordinate service rules, 1960 - rule 4(b)--definition of 'commission' amended with retrospective effect--selection & appointment, of respondents held void prio to amendment of rule--termination order of two petitioners is set aside. - .....identical question and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common, order.2. the petitioner in writ petitions no. 358 of 1971 and no. 1526 of 1971 is the same person, banshidhar bona, while writ petition no. 362 of 1971 has been filed by bhawani singh chauhan. both these petitioners were appointed as assistant mining engineers (survey) in temporary capacity and the period of their temporary employment was extended from time to time, subject to the condition that the same was liable to be terminated earlier in case persons duly selected by the rajasthan public service commission (hereinafter referred to as the commission) were appointed on the aforesaid posts. the commission advertised the posts of assistant maning engineers & respondents nos. 3 to 8, in writ petitions nos. 353 and.....
Judgment:

D.P. Gupta, J.

1. These three petitions arise in similar circumstances and raise identical question and, therefore, they are disposed of by a common, order.

2. The petitioner in writ petitions No. 358 of 1971 and No. 1526 of 1971 is the same person, Banshidhar Bona, while writ petition No. 362 of 1971 has been filed by Bhawani Singh Chauhan. Both these petitioners were appointed as Assistant Mining Engineers (Survey) in temporary capacity and the period of their temporary employment was extended from time to time, subject to the condition that the same was liable to be terminated earlier in case persons duly selected by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) were appointed on the aforesaid posts. The Commission advertised the posts of Assistant Maning Engineers & respondents Nos. 3 to 8, in writ petitions Nos. 353 and 1526 of 1971 (sic) selected for such posts by the Commission in the month of December, 1970. A (sic) result of the aforesaid selection, the services of the both the petitioner were terminated by the order of State Government dated January 27, 1971 with effect from April 30, 1971. Writ Petition No. 358 of 1971 was filed by Banshi Dhar Bohra challenging the aforesaid order of the termination of his services, while the subsequent writ petition No. 1526 of 1971 was filed by him praying that the appointment of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 and of three other persons who were joined as respondents Nos. 9 to 11 in writ petition No. 1526 of 1971 be quashed. It may be noted that respondents Nos. 9 to 11 in writ petition No. 1526 of 1971 were selected by the Commission in May 1971. However, learned couns1 for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does nos wish to press his writ petition No. 1526 of 1971 in respect of the selection and appointments of respondent Nos 9 to 11.

3. The common question, which has been raised in there three writ petitions relati g to the validity of the selections made by the Commission as a result of the interviews held in December, 1970 and the consequent appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 in writ petitions Nos 358 and 1526 of 1971 on the posts of Assistant Mining Engineers has already been considered and decided in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 526 of 1971, Hari Mohan v. The State of Rajasthan and Ors. decided on July 2, 1975 following the decision of this Court in K.K. Bhatia v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission 1972 RLW 22. It was held in Hari Mohan's case that the list of selected candidates prepared by only two members of the Commission along with experts and departmental representative was invalid and the consequent appointment of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8 in pursuance of the aforesaid recommendation of the Commission were also held to be void. Thus the selection and appointment of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 on the posts of Assistant Mining Engineers have already been set aside in Hari Mohan's case. It was also held in that case that as the petitioner's services were terminated by the State Government on account of the illegal appointments of respondents No. 3 to 8 on the basis of the recommendation of the Commission, the order of termination of the services of the petitioner in the case, dated January 27, 1971 was also set aside. It may be mentioned here that the services of the petitioners in these writ petitions and of Hari Mohan were terminated by the State Government by the very same order dated January 27, 1072.

4. Learned Deputy Government Advocate, Mr. Calla, submitted that the Rajasthan Mines and Geological Subordinate Service Rules, 1960 have been amended by notifications dated August 3, 1975 and August 8, 1975 and the definition of 'Commission' contained in Rule 4(b) of the aforesaid Rules has been amended with retrospective effect and argued that on the basis of the amended definition of 'Commission' any one or more members of the Commission, acting jointly or severally, represent the Commission and as such the selection and appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 cannot now be considered to be void. However, as I have already observed above, the selection and appointments of respondents Nos. 3 to 8 have already been held to be void and have been set aside by the order of this Court in Hari Mohan's case on July 2, 1975 prior to the amendments made in the aforesaid Rules on August 3, 1975 and August 8, 1975 and as such these amendments cannot validate such selection and appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8.

5. As the services of the two petitioners were terminated by the order of the State Government dated January 27, 1971 on account of the appointments of the respondents Nos. 3 to 8, which have been declared by this Court to be invalid in Hari Mohan's case, the order of termination of the services of the two petitioners dated January 27, 1971 is set aside so far as these petitioners are concerned. These writ petitions are accordingly allowed in part as indicated above. Writ Petition No. 1526 of 1971 is dismissed as not pressed in respect of respondents Nos. 9 to 11 in that case. However, in circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.


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