Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Asha Kumari Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 5 April, 2021
Bench: Indrajit Mahanty, Vinit Kumar Mathur
(1 of 4) [CW-19024/2018]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19024/2018
Asha Kumari Meena W/o Late Shri Rajendra Kuamr Meena, aged
about 38 years, R/o Village Barla, Post Kherwada, District
Udaipur temporary residing at Afri Main Campus, Quarter
No. 3/09, New Pali Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through its Principal Secretary,
Department of Personnel, Secretariat, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
2. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Law and Justice
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Department of
Secondary Education, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its
Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.
5. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Pareek
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa, AGC
Mr. Piyush Bhandari on behalf of
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, A.A.G.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE INDRAJIT MAHANTY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
Order
05/04/2021
The matter comes upon an application (Inward No. 01/2021)
for early hearing of the writ petition.
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is
allowed.
(2 of 4) [CW-19024/2018]
With the consent of the parties, we have heard the matter
finally.
The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner
whereby the validity of the Notification dated 20.06.2001 and the
amended Rajasthan Educational Service Rules, 1970 dated
27.06.2001 has been challenged. The petitioner has prayed that
the policy of the Government whereby the candidature of the
petitioner was rejected on the ground of having more than two
children on or after 01.06.2002, be quashed and set aside.
The controversy involved in the present writ petition was
subject matter of consideration in D.B. Civil Reference No.
01/2018 titled as "Dr. Dalpat Singh Rajpurohit Vs. State of
Rajasthan & ors." decided on 09.01.2019 wherein, the
questions for consideration were as follows :-
"1. Whether rule 21(3) is liable to be declared
unconstitutional as it amounts to double
jeopardy as far as consideration of candidature
of in-service candidates like the petitioner for
direct recruitment to the teaching positions
under the Rules of 1962 is concerned ?
2. Whether the State while enacting law under
proviso to Article 309 of the Rules of 1962
(Entry 25 of List III of Schedule VII under
Article 246 of the Constitution of India) could
transgress the norms prescribed under the
Regulations of 1998 framed by Medical Council
of India through subordinate Legislation of
Central Legislation (Entry 66 of List I of
Schedule VII under Article 246 of the
Constitution of India) more particularly in view
of the Authoritative pronouncements of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments delivered
(3 of 4) [CW-19024/2018]
in the case of UOI Vs. Shah Goverdhanlal
Kabra Teachers College (reported in 2002 (8)
SCC 228) and Sudhir N. Vs. State of Kerala
(reported in 2015 (6) SCC 685) ?
3. Whether there exist any rational basis based
on quantifiable date which could show that the
State has been successful in achieving the goal
of population control vide enactment of such
regressive provision in the form of Rule 21(3)
of the Rules of 1962 ?"
The Full Bench of this Court has answered the reference in
the following manner :-
"29. In view of forgoing discussion, we are not
impressed that the Rules of 1962 made under
proviso to 309 of the Constitution is beyond
legislative competence of the State. It is plain
beyond words that impugned Rule 21(3) of the
Rules of 1962 only refers to legislation with
respect to Entry 41, List II Schedule VII in the
State's Legislative List; it has no application to the
legislation with respect to anything in Entry 66,
List I, Schedule VII of the Constitution prescribing
fields of Union Legislation.
Resultantly, our answer to Question No. 2 is in
negative and it is hereby declared that the State
while enacting law under proviso to Article 309 of
the Constitution, namely, Rules of 1962, has not
transgressed its legislative power to encroach on a
Union subject envisaged in Entry 66, List I of
Schedule VII of the Constitution."
In the present case, learned counsel for the petitioner is not
in a position to dispute that the petitioner was having more than
two children after the cut off date i.e. 01.06.2002.
(4 of 4) [CW-19024/2018]
Apart from this, it is contended by the learned counsel for
the respondents that the selection in pursuance of the
advertisement dated 16.10.2015 has already been concluded and
there is no vacancy left.
Thus, in view of the above, we find no merit in the present
writ petition and the same is dismissed.
(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J (INDRAJIT MAHANTY),CJ
21-Inder-Payal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
