In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has held that public employment cannot be terminated solely based on revised cut-off marks, providing relief to two college lecturers embroiled in a legal battle over their appointments. The judgment was delivered by Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur in the cases of Gauri Shankar Jinger & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11875/2023, and the connected petition Jhanwar Ram v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 610/2023.
Background of the Case
The case revolved around the selection and appointment of college lecturers in Rajasthan, specifically for the subject of Philosophy, under an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) on January 12, 2015. The petitioner, Gauri Shankar Jinger, applied for the post but was initially not selected due to not meeting the criteria for a “good academic record” as stipulated in the advertisement. However, a subsequent notification issued by the State Government on July 13, 2021, altered the parameters by relaxing the “good academic record” criteria for SC/ST and PH candidates as per the University Grants Commission’s (UGC) 2010 regulations.
Following this notification, the RPSC reconsidered Jinger’s application, and he was recommended for appointment on September 30, 2022. Meanwhile, the petitioner in the connected case, Jhanwar Ram, who had been appointed earlier under the original criteria, was issued a show cause notice on December 28, 2022, threatening termination of his services. This led to a legal tussle, with both parties approaching the High Court for relief.
Key Legal Issues Involved
1. Validity of Termination Based on Revised Criteria: The primary issue was whether a public employee, already appointed and serving, could be terminated solely based on the revision of the eligibility criteria or cut-off marks after their appointment.
2. Equity and Fairness in Public Employment: The court was also tasked with balancing the equities between two competing interests – protecting the job security of an already appointed employee versus recognizing the rights of a new appointee whose eligibility was reconsidered under revised norms.
Key Observations of the Court:
1. Protection Against Retrospective Termination: The Court emphasized, “Once persons are selected and appointed as per the merit list, and there is no fraud, mischief, misrepresentation, or mala fide on their part, their continuous services cannot be terminated only on the ground of revision in cut-off marks, whereby they were sought to be ousted from the employment in question at a belated stage.”
2. Equity in Decision Making: Justice Mathur highlighted the need for fairness in the court’s approach: “The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is also a Court of equity. It is not only within its power but also its duty to advance the ends of justice and to uproot injustice. While granting relief, the High Court is expected to balance equities by passing an appropriate order which justice may demand and equities may project.”
3. Relief Granted to Both Petitioners: The Court quashed the show cause notice issued to Jhanwar Ram and allowed him to continue on the post of College Lecturer (Philosophy). Simultaneously, it directed the respondents to issue an appointment order for Gauri Shankar Jinger within four weeks, recognizing his eligibility under the revised criteria. Jinger was also granted all notional benefits from the date when Ram was appointed, ensuring parity and fairness.
Decision of the Court
Justice Mathur, after hearing arguments from both sides, decided to protect the interests of both petitioners. The Court observed that public employment cannot be terminated solely on the basis of revised cut-off marks or eligibility criteria, especially when the employee has already been selected and appointed in good faith.
Representation
The petitioners were represented by advocates Ms. Varsha Bissa and Mr. Prakash Vyas, while the respondents were represented by Mr. Pukhraj Suthar, Deputy Government Counsel, and counsels Mr. Falgun Buch, Mr. Gopalkrishna Chhangani, and Ms. Simram Mehta.
