The case of Avinash Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan was adjudicated by the Rajasthan High Court on September 19, 2018. This litigation centers around the controversial selection and appointment process conducted by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) for the post of Conductor. The primary parties involved include the petitioners—employees who were appointed and subsequently confirmed as Conductors—and the respondent—RSRTC. The case delves into issues of merit list revisions, arbitrary terminations, and the protection of confirmed employees against unfair employment practices within a public sector organization.

The Rajasthan High Court examined a series of writ petitions challenging RSRTC's recruitment process for Conductors. Initially, controversy arose from high cut-off marks disfavoring reserved category candidates, leading to multiple court interventions directing RSRTC to redraw merit lists and reassess selection criteria. Over time, RSRTC revised merit lists, imposed additional qualifications such as possessing an HMV Driving License, and conducted trade tests. Despite legal directions, RSRTC continued to adjust merit lists, resulting in the exclusion and termination of already appointed and confirmed Conductors. In the lead case, Avinash Sharma and others, who were confirmed employees, challenged their termination based on revised merit lists. The High Court held RSRTC's actions as arbitrary and illegal, mandating the continuation of the petitioners' employment and declaring the revised lists excluding them as unlawful.

The Judgment extensively references several key cases that shape the court's reasoning:

• Prem Prakash Sharma v. RSRTC (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13855/2011): Addressed the arbitrary imposition of additional qualifications and merit list revisions, emphasizing fair consideration based on merit.
• Vishnu Lal Sen v. RSRTC (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1396/2012): Focused on the fairness of selection processes and the protection of appointed employees against wrongful termination.
• Kailash Chand Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 6 SCC 562: Highlighted that consent agreements in employment disputes are not applicable in rem, ensuring that directives remain confined to specific cases.
• Vikas Pratap Singh v. State Of Chhattisgarh (2013) 14 SCC 494: Established the principle that unjust termination affects employees' livelihoods, warranting court intervention to protect innocent appointees.
• Union of India v. Narendra Singh: Emphasized the protection of employees approaching retirement from wrongful termination resulting from administrative errors.
• Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission (2018) 4 SCJ 641: Addressed the repercussions of revising merit lists post-appointment, ensuring that settled selections remain unaffected by later revisions.
• Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2013) 4 SCC 690: Reinforced the protection of employees appointed without fraud or misrepresentation, even if later merit revisions occur.

The court's legal reasoning is anchored in constitutional principles, particularly Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law and the right to equal protection. The High Court underscored that once candidates are appointed and confirmed based on merit, any arbitrary termination undermines these constitutional protections. The doctrine of fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) was pivotal, asserting that innocent employees who were not involved in any wrongdoing must be protected against unfair employment practices.

Moreover, the court highlighted the ethical and practical implications of terminating employees who had served for several years, emphasizing the public sector's duty to ensure job security and prevent undue hardship. The judgment also stressed that financial constraints or administrative oversights by RSRTC do not justify arbitrary termination of rightful employees. The High Court mandated that RSRTC adhere strictly to merit-based selection without bias or unfair exclusions, ensuring that existing employees' rights are safeguarded.

This landmark judgment has profound implications for public sector recruitment processes:

• Strengthening Job Security: Confirms that once employees are appointed and confirmed based on merit, they cannot be arbitrarily terminated, thereby enhancing job security within public institutions.
• Ensuring Fair Selection Processes: Mandates adherence to transparent and unbiased merit-based selection criteria, preventing manipulations or arbitrary adjustments of merit lists.
• Limiting Administrative Arbitrary Actions: Restricts public sector organizations from making unilateral and unjustified changes to recruitment outcomes, ensuring that administrative actions align with legal and constitutional standards.
• Guiding Future Litigations: Serves as a precedent for similar cases involving public employment disputes, guiding courts in handling conflicts between employee rights and administrative decisions.
• Promoting Ethical Governance: Encourages public sector entities to uphold ethical standards in recruitment and employment practices, fostering trust and accountability.

1. Mandamus

A judicial remedy in the form of an order from a superior court to any government subordinate court, corporation, or public authority to do some specific act which that body is obliged under law to do.

2. Merit List

A ranked list of candidates based on their performance in examinations or selection processes, determining their eligibility for appointments or positions.

3. Reserved Categories

Sections of society, such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Standard Backward Classes (SBC), that are provided with certain affirmative actions in employment and education to ensure social equity.

4. Quotations and Cut-off Marks

The minimum marks required to qualify for a particular position, varying across different categories to accommodate reservations and ensure fair competition.

5. Article 14 of the Constitution

Ensures that no individual is denied equal protection of the laws or equal access to public services, preventing discrimination in legal and employment matters.

The Rajasthan High Court's judgment in Avinash Sharma v. State Of Rajasthan underscores the paramount importance of protecting the rights of confirmed employees within public sector organizations. By declaring RSRTC's arbitrary termination of appointed Conductors as illegal, the court reaffirmed constitutional protections against unfair employment practices and emphasized merit-based selection's sanctity. This decision serves as a critical precedent, ensuring that public entities adhere to ethical and legal standards in recruitment and employment, thereby fostering a fair and just working environment. The case highlights the judiciary's role in balancing administrative discretion with individual rights, ensuring that legal equities are maintained in public employment scenarios.