बोनस (भारांक) अंकों वाला आर्डर: सुप्रीमकोर्ट का आर्डर देखें: सुप्रीम कोर्ट के राजस्थान एवं हरियाणा के शिक्षकभर्ती में भारांक सम्बन्धी आदेश में स्पष्ट दिया है कि भारांक 15 अंक से अधिक नही दिया जा सकता है

August 11, 2017

Corrected
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32008-32009/2013

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/09/2013
in DBCWP No. 4144/2013 25/09/2013 in DBCWP No. 9780/2013 passed by
the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jodhpur)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ARCHANA ETC. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for impleadment and withdrawal of SLP and interim
relief and office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 39720/2013
(With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for exemption from
filing O.T. and Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 3026/2014
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 7110/2014
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 22767/2014
(With Office Report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 19472-19475/2014
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1885/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1886/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1887/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1884/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 22387/2014
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)
2
SLP(C) No. 8584/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 2560/2016
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 28042/2016
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Interim Relief
and Office Report)
Date : 29/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery,Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Prateek Yadav,Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj,Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Anil,Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. H.D. Thanvi,Adv.
Mr. Rishi Matoliya,Adv.
Ms. Priti Thanvi,Adv.
Ms. Sumati Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv.
Mr. Jaideep Singh,Adv.
Mr. T. Gopal,Adv.
Ms. Anshul Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Mehul Singh,Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma,Adv.
Mr. R.R. Jangu,Adv.
Mr. Manish Paliwal,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Kumar,Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma,Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap,Adv.
Mr. Mukul Kumar,Adv.
3
Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari,Adv.
M/s Vidhi International,Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C)NOS.32008-32009/2013, 39720/2013, 3026/2014, 1885/2015,
1886/2015, 1887/2015, 1884/2015 & 8584/2015
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is permitted to
withdraw the application (I.A.No.3-4/2015) for withdrawal of SLP(C)
No.32008-32009/2013.
Application for withdrawal of SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
All the applications for impleadment are dismissed.
Leave granted. The appeals are allowed, in terms of the
signed order.
SLP(C)NOS. 7110/2014, 22767/2014, SLP(C)...CC No.19472-19475/2014,
SLP(C) Nos.22387/2014, SLP(C)No.2560/2016 and SLP(C)No.28042/2016
Delay condoned in SLP(C)..CC No.19472-19475/2014.
Leave granted in all the SLPs.
[O.P. SHARMA] [RAJINDER KAUR]
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
4
ITEM NO.33 COURT NO.4 SECTION XV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 32008-32009/2013
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 25/09/2013
in DBCWP No. 4144/2013 25/09/2013 in DBCWP No. 9780/2013 passed by
the High Court Of Rajasthan At Jodhpur)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ARCHANA ETC. Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for impleadment and withdrawal of SLP and interim
relief and office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 39720/2013
(With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for exemption from
filing O.T. and Interim Relief and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 3026/2014
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 7110/2014
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 22767/2014
(With Office Report)
S.L.P.(C)...CC No. 19472-19475/2014
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1885/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1886/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1887/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 1884/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 22387/2014
(With appln.(s) for impleadment and Office Report)
5
SLP(C) No. 8584/2015
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 2560/2016
(With Office Report)
SLP(C) No. 28042/2016
(With appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and Interim Relief
and Office Report)
Date : 29/11/2016 These petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J. CHELAMESWAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. S.S. Shamshery,Adv.
Mr. Amit Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Prateek Yadav,Adv.
Mr. Ankit Raj,Adv.
Mr. Paritosh Anil,Adv.
Ms. Ruchi Kohli,Adv.
Mr. Nidhesh Gupta,Sr.Adv.
Mr. H.D. Thanvi,Adv.
Mr. Rishi Matoliya,Adv.
Ms. Priti Thanvi,Adv.
Ms. Sumati Sharma,Adv.
Mr. Sarad Kumar Singhania,Adv.
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Adv.
Mr. Jaideep Singh,Adv.
Mr. T. Gopal,Adv.
Ms. Anshul Sharma,Adv.
Ms. Mehul Singh,Adv.
Ms. Shalu Sharma,Adv.
Mr. R.R. Jangu,Adv.
Mr. Manish Paliwal,Adv.
Mr. Vikas Kumar,Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Verma,Adv.
Mr. M. M. Kashyap,Adv.
Mr. Mukul Kumar,Adv.
Mr. Abhindra Maheshwari,Adv.
M/s Vidhi International,Adv.
6

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
SLP(C)NOS.32008-32009/2013, 39720/2013, 3026/2014, 1885/2015,
1886/2015, 1887/2015, 1884/2015 & 8584/2015
Learned counsel for the petitioner prays and is permitted to
withdraw the application (I.A.No.3-4/2015) for withdrawal of SLP(C)
No.32008-32009/2013.
Application for withdrawal of SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 is
dismissed as withdrawn.
All the applications for impleadment are dismissed.
Leave granted. The appeals are allowed, in terms of the
signed order.
SLP(C)NOS. 7110/2014, 22767/2014, SLP(C)...CC No.19472-19475/2014,
SLP(C) Nos.22387/2014, SLP(C)No.2560/2016 and SLP(C)No.28042/2016
Delay condoned in SLP(C)..CC No.10472-19475/2014.
Leave granted in all the SLPs.
[O.P. SHARMA] [RAJINDER KAUR]
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER
(Signed order is placed on the file)
7
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11406-11407 OF 2016
(Arising out of SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN & ORS APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
ARCHANA ETC. RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11408 OF 2016
(@ SLP(C)No.39720/2013)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11409 OF 2016
(@ SLP(C)No.3026/2014)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11410 OF 2016
(@ SLP(C)No.1885/2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11411 OF 2016
(@ SLP(C)No.1886/2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11412 OF 2016
(@ SLP(C)No.1887/2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11413 OF 2016
(@ SLP(C)No.1884/2015)
CIVIL APPEAL NO.11414 OF 2016
(@ SLP(C)No.8584/2015)
O R D E R
These eight special leave petitions arise out of a common
judgment dated 25.9.2013 of the High Court of Rajasthan. The issue
involved in these matters is no more res integra and covered by the
judgment of this Court in Sachivalya Dainik Vetan Bhogi Karamchari
Union, Jaipur vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. 2016 (8) SCALE 64.
8
The Rajasthan Panchayti Raj Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') authorises the State of Rajasthan to carry out the
objectives of the Act. In exercise of the power under the Act,
Rules were framed by the State in the year 1996. Chapter 12 of the
Rules relates to the recruitment and the service conditions for the
Panchayati Raj Institutions in the State of Rajasthan.
Rule 273 deals with the procedure for making recruitment to
the various posts. The proviso to the said rule authorises the
Government to give some weightage to the experience of the
candidates seeking employment. In exercise of the said power, the
State of Rajasthan propounded a policy for weightage for
experience. In substance: the weightage is 10 marks for experience
of more than one year but less than 2 years, 20 marks for the
experience of more than 2 years but less than 3 years and 30 marks
for experience of more than 3 years. The complete details of the
entire system may not be relevant for the present purpose.
It is agreed on all hands that the facts leading in
SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013 be taken as representative facts in this
batch of SLPs
A writ petition came to be filed in the Rajasthan High Court
by the first respondent herein-Archana in SLP(C)No.32008-32009/2013
praying that the above policy of the Government be implemented in
the ongoing recruitment of the Junior Assistants in the Panchayati
Raj Institutions. The learned Single Judge of the Rajasthan High
Court, while hearing the matter entertained the doubt whether the
9
said weightage proposed by the State is consistent with the law
laid down by this Court in Uma Devi's case (Secretary, State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors 2006 (4) SCC 1), therefore,
referred the matter to a Division Bench.
By the judgment under appeal, the Division Bench though did
not find anything wrong with the policy of giving weightage for the
'experience' gained by the candidates however, found that the
bonus marks to the extent of 30 marks is unjust and arbitrary. The
relevant portion of the impugned judgment reads as follows:
“...(5) The grant of weightage in the form of bonus
marks while making recruitment to the post in the
services in question is not at all in contravention
of the law laid down in the case of State of
Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (supra), and it is also not
an effort to frustrate the law laid down in the
case aforesaid; and
(6) The grant of bonus marks to the extent of 30
marks is unjust, arbitrary and unfair, hence is
declared illegal and is quashed. The State
Government may grant the weightage in the form of
bonus marks against service experience within the
cap of 15 marks.”
Aggrieved by the same, the State of Rajasthan, preferred the
instant special leave petition being SLP (C)Nos.23008-32009/2013.
Leave granted in all the eight special leave petitions.
The question of grant of weightage fell for consideration
before this Court. It is a case where certain employees sought
10
regularisation of their service in the State of Rajasthan by filing
a writ petition. During the pendency of the writ petition there
was a settlement of the dispute between the State and the employees
Union. The relevant terms of settlement were as follows:
“..(2) In the event of the Government making
regular selections for the vacant posts of Farrash/
Sweepers/Class IV/ Helper etc. the petitioners
shall be given weightage as well as relaxation in
the eligibility condition keeping in view their
long duration of past services subject to their
satisfactory performance.
(3) Subject to the giving of weightage and
relaxation in the eligibility condition, the
petitioners will have to compete with others, in
case, the Government intends to make regular
selections on the vacant posts of Farrash/
Sweepers/Class IV/ Helper etc.and...”
Subsequently, the State sought to fill up some of the Class IV
posts. The recruitment process came to be challenged by the
employees Union on the ground that the recruitment was not
consistent with the terms of the settlement entered into between
the State and the employees Union earlier (the relevant portion of
which is already extracted above). The question of legality of the
policy of giving weightage for experience gained and whether such
weightage would be consistent with the law declared by this Court
in Uma Devi arose.
When this matter reached this Court, this Court held that Uma
11
Devi's case (supra) did not deal with the question of weightage but
dealt with the mode of recruitment. It was further held that the
quantum/measure of weightage could be decided by the State by
adopting a rational policy in accordance with the law.
In the instant case, the State itself was the propounder of
the policy (noticed above), giving the weightage which varied with
the number of 'experience' gained by the employees. Therefore, the
State cannot be heard to say that the policy is not a rational
policy. Apart from that, we do not find anything arbitrary in the
policy propounded by the State.
In the result, the appeals of the state as well as of the
employees are allowed. We set aside the judgment under appeal to
the extent that it held that the State Government may grant
weightage/bonus marks against the service experience within the cap
of 15 marks.
In other words, the policy propounded by the State must be
allowed to operate on its own terms.
With the above directions the appeals are allowed as indicated
above.
…....................J.
[ J. CHELAMESWAR ]
…....................J.
[ PRAFULLA C. PANT ]
NEW DELHI
NOVEMBER 29, 2016
हरियाणा सरकार ने 2009 में अध्यापकों की भर्ती हेतु विज्ञापन निकाला तथा उस विज्ञापन में उमा देवी केस को आधार बना कर पूर्व में कार्यरत संविदा कर्मियों को उनके अनुभव के सापेक्ष 24 अंको का भारी भरकम भारांक दे दिया। जिसको कि वहां की हाई कोर्ट में चैलेंज कर दिया गया। हाई कोर्ट ने 24 अंको के उक्त भारांक को अनुच्छेद 14 व 16 के आलोक में आवश्यकता से अधिक कहते हुए दिनाँक 06 अप्रैल 2010 को रद्द कर दिया तथा टिप्पणी की कि सरकार ने इतना अधिक भारांक देकर उन संविदा कर्मियों का अप्रत्यक्ष समायोजन कर दिया जिसको कि वह प्रत्यक्ष रूप से नही कर सकती थी तथा यह अन्य योग्यताधारियों के सरकारी नौकरी में समान अवसर के अधिकार का उल्लंघन है। बाद में यह केस सुप्रीम कोर्ट पहुंचा व सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने 21 फरवरी 2012 को हाई कोर्ट के आदेश को सही मानते हुए आवश्यकता से अधिक भारांक को रद्द कर दिया। ऐसा ही एक अन्य मुद्दा राजस्थान हाई कोर्ट में उठा जहां राजस्थान सरकार ने संविदा कर्मियों को 30 अंको का अधिकतम भारांक दे दिया जिसको कि हाई कोर्ट ने 25 सितम्बर 2013 को आवश्यकता से अधिक बताते हुए रद्द कर दिया। हरियाणा मुद्दे में जहां सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने दोबारा उचित भारांक देने को कहां वहां ही राजस्थान हाई कोर्ट ने अधिकतम 15 अंको के भारांक को उचित माना।