Rajasthan HC Declines Relief To Candidates Terminated From Govt Post After One Year Of Service Due To Modified Answer Key And Revised Merit List
Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of petitions filed by aggrieved individuals who were terminated from their post of livestock assistants one year after their service, because of a modified answer key and consequent change in the merit list.The bench of Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by individuals who were appointed as livestock assistants in 2022 after...
Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of petitions filed by aggrieved individuals who were terminated from their post of livestock assistants one year after their service, because of a modified answer key and consequent change in the merit list.
The bench of Justice Sameer Jain was hearing a bunch of petitions filed by individuals who were appointed as livestock assistants in 2022 after being declared meritorious in the exam conducted for the post. However, after approximately one year, a petition was filed challenging the model answer key of the exam. The case subsequently resulted in a modified answer key being published by the government and a revised result for the posts. Based on this revised result, the petitioners were terminated from the service.
The counsel for the petitioners argued that if the appointment, joining, training and rendering of services by the petitioners was as per the due selection process, the services of petitioners ought not to be discontinued despite the change in merit but the same should continue. However, if this was not possible, the petitioners should be adjusted against future vacancies since the nature of the job was recurring.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that the appointment letters of the petitioners explicitly mentioned that, firstly, the appointment was subject to any litigation, and secondly the rendering of their service was on probation and the service was not yet confirmed. It was further contended that as per the new merit list, there were 285 candidates who were more meritorious than the petitioners. Hence, giving appointments to the petitioners over such candidates would be arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory.
Agreeing with the arguments of the counsel for the respondents, the Court observed that the appointment letters were unequivocal and categorically clear that the appointment was not absolute but was contingent on subsequent litigation and clearing of the probation period. Furthermore, it was also mentioned in the appointment letter, that the service could be terminated without recorded reasons during this probation period.
The Court also opined that considering the fact that there were 285 candidates above the petitioners in the revised merit list, adjusting petitioners against the future vacancies would be discriminatory to such 285 candidates.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the petitions.
Title: Brijsundar Regar & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 162