Sunita vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 9054 Raj

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 9054 Raj
Judgement Date : 8 April, 2021

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Sunita vs State Of Rajasthan on 8 April, 2021

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9046/2020

1. Sunita D/o Shri Bhoop Singh, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Hindu, R/o Village Tehsil Nohar And District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Hfw Reg. No. Hfw0065195

2. Dhapa Nain D/o Shri Bhoop Singh, Aged About 28 Years, B/c Hindu, R/o Ward No. 2, Vpo Malwani Tehsil Nohar And District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Hfw Reg. No. Hfw0040906.

3. Saroj Bala D/o Shri Ram Chander, Aged About 30 Years, B/c Hindu, R/o Ward No. 13 Vpo Mirjawalimer Tehsil Rawatsar And District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Hfw Reg. No. Hfw0053008.

4. Ambika D/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 31 Years, B/c Hindu, R/o Ward No. 9, Village 34 Rwd, Po Gandheli Tehsil Rawatsar And District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Hfw Reg. No. Hfw0010238.

5. Manisha D/o Shri Shishpal, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Hindu, R/o Village Tehsil Nohar And District Hanumangarh (Raj.) Hfw Reg. No. Hfw0003164.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Medical Health Department And Mission Director, National Health Mission, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).

2. The Director, State Institute Of Health And Family Welfare, Jhalana Institutional Area, Near Doordarshan Kendra, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Chief Medical And Health Officer, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. PK Poonia
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. KS Rajpurohit, AAG
                                 Mr. Shreyansh Mehta



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order



                                           (2 of 4)                  [CW-9046/2020]

08/04/2021

1. By way of present writ petition, petitioners have challenged

the action of the respondents, whereby candidates lower in merit

to them have been given appointment, while petitioners have

been kept out of the select list.

2. The facts if narrated in a nutshell, are that the respondents

invited applications for filling up 1789 posts of ANM on contractual

basis vide notification dated 28.01.2016.

3. All the petitioners herein appeared in written examination

and having secured 48.015; 80.406; 66.518; 53.569; and 53.569

percentile ranking respectively were called for document

verification and the final select list was issued.

4. Mr. Poonia, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the case of the petitioner is not different than the one involved in

SBCWP No.936/2020 (Manisha Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.)

decided by a separate order of even date, wherein following has

been held:-

"13. In the opinion of this Court, when a clear direction has been given by this Court in the case of Priyanka Saini (supra), in relation to self-same recruitment, the respondents were bound to adhere to the directions given in such judgment.

14. It will not be out of place to reproduce directions given in case of Priyanka Saini (supra):-

"Following the view formulated by the coordinate Bench in the case of Rajkumar & Ors. (supra), the present writ petitions are disposed of by issuing following directions:-

(i). That the respondents shall issue a public notice in 'Rajasthan Patrika' and 'Dainik Bhaskar' having largest circulation in the State of Rajasthan, within ten days from the receipt of certified copy of the order.

(ii). That the respondents in the public notice shall also disclose number of vacancies available in each District.

(iii). That the respondents in the public notice to be issued in pursuance of directions issued above, shall seek option of candidates district-

(3 of 4) [CW-9046/2020]

wise. Needless to say, a meritorious candidate shall first give option for his/her home district and then shall give his/her preference for remaining districts serial-wise.

(iv). That the respondents, after meritorious candidates are allowed to exercise option for his/her home district and posts are filled on that basis, shall allocate remaining posts in other districts to successful candidates on the basis of merit.

(v). It is clarified that no candidate lower in merit will be allowed to jump a candidate who is meritorious. So far employment is concerned, all candidates in merit list shall be allocated a district.

(vi). That respondents shall device a formula to act in consonance with the directions issued by this court above so that no meritorious person is left out of the employment."

15. This Court cannot countenance the stand of the State that, since the petitioners had filled in Barmer/Jalore/Barmer as their first choice of District and the seats got filled by the candidates securing higher marks than the petitioners, they were not considered for appointment for other districts.

16. The stand of the respondents has led to hostile discrimination against the petitioners, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution on the face of it. The candidates having secured as low as 59 percentile rankings have been given appointment, may be in district Jaisalmer but then, once the State was required to prepare State-wise merit list, it cannot stick to the first option given by a candidate. If the seats in district Barmer/Jalore have been occupied by the candidates having secured higher marks than the petitioners, the respondents were required to consider the petitioners for other districts, as per the options given by them.

17. Adverting to the argument of Mr. Mehta that the recruitment is already over, this Court is of the considered view that when the respondents themselves have erred, they cannot take an excuse of rights of other selected candidates.

18. The directions given in Priyanka Saini's case (supra) were unequivocal and binding. Respondents' action of not considering the petitioners in the Districts other than their home district is illegal and arbitrary besides being contrary to judgment in Priyanka Saini's case (supra)."

(4 of 4) [CW-9046/2020]

5. Mr. Rajpurohit, learned Additional Advocate General does not

dispute the aforesaid poistion.

6. The writ petition is, therefore, allowed.

7. The respondent No.2 is directed to offer appointment to the

petitioners in any of the districts where vacancies still exist. It will

be required of him to prepare fresh merit list for the petitioners

and then offer appointment to them in the districts as per the

option(s) they had given, obviously in the districts where seats are

still lying vacant.

8. Needless to observe that such appointment will remain

subject to the petitioners being otherwise eligible.