Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sonal Meena vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:12623) on 6 March, 2025
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2025:RJ-JD:12623] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4283/2025 Sonal Meena D/o Shri Laxman Lal Meena, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Mewara Tehsil Bicchiwada, District Dungarpur, (Raj.)
----Petitioner Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Jaipur Through Its Secretary, State Institute Of Agriculture Mangement Premises, Tonk Road, Shriji Nagar, Prithviraj Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The Director, Elementary Education And Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education), Rajasthan, Bikaner (Raj.)
5. The District Education Officer, (Elementary), Headquarters, Elementary Education, Sirohi, District Sirohi (Raj.)
6. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Sirohi (Raj.)
7. The Block Development Officer, Panchyat Samiti, Pindwara, District Sirohi (Raj.)
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bheru Lal Jat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. B.L.Bhati, AAG JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 06/03/2025
1. By way of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.11.2024 passed by the respondent No.4- Director, Elementary Education and Panchayati Raj (Elementary Education), Bikaner, whereby her representation made in (Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:47:14 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12623] (2 of 6) [CW-4283/2025] furtherance of the order dated 21.10.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in her earlier writ petition (being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16137/2024) has been rejected.
2. The facts in a nut-shell are that the petitioner's name was recommended by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') for appointment on the post in question vide its communication dated 18.06.2024 in TSP (ST) category for district Sirohi.
3. Thereafter, an appointment order dated 28.07.2024 came to be issued in her favour, in furtherance whereof, she had joined the services. Hardly had the petitioner joined the services, her appointment came to be canceled by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 18.09.2024, while making reference of an order passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15497/2023.
4. The petitioner alongwith other similarly situated candidates preferred separate writ petitions before this Court, which came to be allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by common order dated 21.10.2024, essentially, on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. While allowing the writ petitions, this Court had directed the respondents to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
5. The petitioner made a representation before the Director, Elementary Education, who vide order impugned dated 25.11.2024 rejected the same.
6. While rejecting the petitioner's representation, the respondent No.4 noticed all relevant facts, including the adjudication made by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition (Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:47:14 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12623] (3 of 6) [CW-4283/2025] No.15497/2023 (Lila Kumar Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 07.11.2023.
7. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner was duly selected on merit and was offered appointment without there being any mis-representation or fault/fraud on her part. He argued that the petitioner could not be ousted in a bid to accommodate other candidates whose writ petition came to be allowed by this Court on 07.11.2023.
8. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon co-ordinate Bench judgment dated 03.09.2024, rendered in the case of Gauri Shanker Jinger vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11875/2023) and submitted that the appointment bonafidely given to the petitioner is required to be saved.
9. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
10. An appreciation of the factual backdrop reveals that Lila Kumari Meena and other similarly situated persons preferred writ petitions in bunch of petitions led by S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15497/2023 and challenged non-consideration of their cases as per the norms fixed for the ST category candidates.
11. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow said bunch of writ petitions holding that the petitioners therein being TSP - ST - Divorcee' candidates cannot be deprived of their rights to be declared successful as per the requisite cut-off marks (36%) set for the TSP - ST Category candidates.
12. While allowing the writ petitions, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held that the petitioners therein having secured (Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:47:14 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12623] (4 of 6) [CW-4283/2025] more than 36%, were entitled to be declared successful. Operative portion of the judgment dated 07.11.2023 rendered in the case of Lila Kumari Meena (supra) reads thus:-
"7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner on the ground that the criteria has been fixed for the different categories and once the petitioners are falling under the widow / divorcee category then they will be governed by serial no. 4 and cannot be said to be governed by serial no. 2 of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022.
8. This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and looking to the narrow dimension of the controversy finds that the petitioners are widow / divorcee, who are seeking recruitment for Teacher Grade-III Level I & II (General and Special Education) in TSP area and while they have qualified their REET examination, they are being disqualified on count of the fact that they have less than 50% marks as per the serial no.4 of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022. It is not in dispute that the petitioners belong to ST-TSP category and thus, the original benefit of their primary category which is at serial no.2 of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022 cannot be denied to them.
9. This Court is of the clear opinion that the petitioners, who belong to the ST - TSP category, as per the advertisement, were having the benefit of relaxation as per the column 2 of the advertisement and thus, in case any other category is applicable to them, which is serial no.4 in this case, then the category which provides optimum benefit lawfully has to be applied. The admitted position of ST - TSP category of the petitioners is directed to be applied so as to ensure their entitlement for the requisite criteria prescribed under the advertisement dated 16.12.2022 in column no.2.(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:47:14 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:12623] (5 of 6) [CW-4283/2025]
10. In view of above observation, the present petitions are allowed and the respondent are directed to treat the petitioners, who are divorcee / widow, in terms of stipulation made at serial no.II of the aforesaid table of advertisement dated 16.12.2022 for the category of ST - TSP, while treating them to be qualified, if they possess above the minimum required marks i.e. 36% marks for the recruitment in question. It shall be open for the respondents to examine all other eligibility criteria but at the same time, the petitioners shall be treated to be qualified for REET- 2022, if they possess at least 36% marks. After fulfilling such criteria, rest of the conditions shall be examined by the respondents and appropriate appointment strictly in accordance with law as per their own merit shall be granted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order with all consequential benefits."
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner was not in a position to assert as to whether the judgment dated 07.11.2023 rendered in the case of Lila Kumari Meena (supra) has been reversed or modified.
14. The respondents have given effect to the adjudication made by this Court in the case of Lila Kumari Meena (supra) and as a consequence thereof, the petitioner and other candidates have been shunted out. It cannot be said that they have been ousted in a bid to accommodate those petitioners, whose writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 07.11.2023.
15. So far as judgment in the case of Gauri Shankar Jinger (supra) is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that the facts involved therein were different inasmuch as a categorical finding was recorded by this Court that numerous posts were lying vacant and while exercising its inherent powers, the (Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:47:14 PM) [2025:RJ-JD:12623] (6 of 6) [CW-4283/2025] appointments of the petitioners therein were saved; whereas in the present case, the petitioner has not been able to show that any post is lying unfilled.
16. That apart, the factual matrix clearly shows that the petitioner has been non-suited as a consequence of grant of appointment to said Lila Kumari Meena and other similarly situated candidates.
17. In view of the above, ouster of the petitioner is a natural concomitant of the acceptance of writ petition filed by said Lila Kumari Meena and Ors. Such being the position, this Court does not find any error in the action of the respondents who have canceled petitioner's appointment, after following due process.
18. The impugned order dated 25.11.2024, whereby the petitioner's representation has been rejected does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
19. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.
20. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 46-akansha/-
(Downloaded on 06/03/2025 at 09:47:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)