Rajasthan High Court

State Of Rajasthan vs Smt Anju Rini Saini Wife Of Late ... on 7 January, 2021

Bench: Sabina, Chandra Kumar Songara

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 796/2020

                                            In

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14907/2017

1.      State     Of     Rajasthan,          through        Principal   Secretary,
        Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Rajasthan,
        Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.      Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Dausa District
        Dausa.
                                                                     ----Appellants
                                       Versus
Smt. Anju Rini Saini Wife of Late Shri Naresh, aged about 39
Years, R/o Surya Colony, Baswa Road, Bandikui, District Dausa
Rajasthan.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Dr. Ganesh Parihar, Additional Advocate General through Video Conferencing

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA KUMAR SONGARA

Order

07/01/2021

Appellant-State has filed the appeal challenging the order

dated 27.11.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby,

writ petition filed by the respondent was allowed.

We have heard learned State counsel and have gone through

the record available on the file carefully.

Respondent had filed the writ petition alleging that she had

applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk in view of the

advertisement issued in the year 2013. Husband of the

(2 of 4) [SAW-796/2020]

respondent had died in the year 2010 and she had applied in the

OBC widow category post. Respondent had all the necessary

qualifications. Respondent was also having additional qualification

of Computer Certificate Rajasthan State Certificate In Information

Technology examination. Respondent was called for document

verification in April 2014, however, she was not issued the posting

order. The cut-off of OBC widow category as published by the

appellants was 26.277%, whereas, the respondent had secured

32.9% marks.

It was the case of the appellants that the respondent had not

acquired the Rajasthan State Certificate In Information Technology

certificate up to the last date of examination for the post of L.D.C.

Respondent had acquired the certificate in September 2014.

Learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition has

placed reliance on the decision of Division Bench of this court in

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13268/2015 decided on 11.02.2016

along with other connected matters. Operative portion of the order

dated 11.02.2016 reads as under:-

"As regards the submission made by petitioners' counsel in relation to requisite qualification of which they have made reference of certain similar like provisions of R.11 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules,1971 & the amendment made& also R.266-A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. Rules,1996, we consider it appropriate to quote as under :-

R.11 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules,1971

11.Academic and Technical qualification and Experience-A candidate for direct recruitment to the posts enumerated in the Schedule shall in addition to such experience as is required, possess-

(i) the qualification given in column 4 of the Schedule, and

(ii) working knowledge of Hindi written in Devnagri script and knowledge of Rajasthani culture.]

(3 of 4) [SAW-796/2020]

[Provided that the Widows and Divorced Women will be given relaxation in qualification of STC or B.Ed. as the case may be for appointment to the post of Teacher or Senior Teacher they are otherwise eligible and furnish an undertaking to the effect that the qualification of STC or B.Ed. as may be relevant shall be obtained within a period of three years. They shall also be eligible for grant of Study Leave soon after their appointment for acquiring the qualification of STC or B.Ed. Amendment of Rule 11.- The existing proviso to rule 11 of the Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules,1971, shall be substituted by the following namely :-

"Provided that the widows/divorced women who have been given appointment on the post of Teacher or Senior Teacher after relaxing the required qualification of B.S.T.C. or B.Ed. shall be regularized from the date they acquire the required qualification of B.S.T.C. or B.Ed., as the case may be. They shall also be eligible for grant of study leave for acquiring the qualification of B.S.T.C. or B.Ed."

R.266-A of the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj. Rules,1996 [R.266-A :-Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the widow/divorcee women, who have been given appointment on the post of teacher after relaxing required educational qualification of B.S.T.C./B.Ed.

under the erstwhile proviso to rule 266 shall be regularised from the date they acquire the requisite educational qualification.]

In the instant batch of petitions, Rule 16(1) of the Rules,2015 of which validity is being assailed has been examined & upheld by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the judgment referred to supra and observed ad infra :-

"The Rules of 2015 are meant to regulate recruitment and other service conditions of Vidhyalay Sahayaks and Assistant Vidhyalay Sahayaks. The experience for recruitment as per the Rules of 2015 is desirable looking to the nature of service. The widows who are having such experience can very well avail the benefit of reservation given under Rule 10. Merely on the count that there may be certain widows who may not be having such experience, the rule cannot be treated ultra vires to the provisions of Part-III of the Constitution of India. It is also pertinent to mention that the Rules of 2015 are not meant to extend socio economic benefits but to have an efficient service. In such public service the rule making authority considered it appropriate to have experience, then that cannot be treated irrational, unjustified or arbitrary merely on the ground that some widows may not be there in zone of consideration being lacking experience. On minute examination of the provision, we do not find any wrong in the requirement of experience prescribed under Rule 16 of the Rules of

(4 of 4) [SAW-796/2020]

2015, which is having universal application irrespective of any category including the categories said to be educationally and socially backward." Taking note of the submissions made by counsel for the parties & the judgment (supra), as regards validity of R.16 is concerned, we do not find any justification to examine the issue & it is no more res integra in light of the judgment (supra) but as regards the later submission made by petitioners' counsel for grant of relaxation in experience for widow/divorcee women candidates and for participating in the selection process held for the post of Vidhyalay Sahayak included in the Schedule appended to the Rules,2015 & seeking liberty to make representation in light thereof, we find reasonable justification and consider it appropriate to grant liberty prayed for.

Accordingly, while upholding validity of R.16 of the Rules,2015, which is impugned before us, we consider it appropriate to grant liberty to the petitioners of making representation to the State Government/appointing authority for grant of relaxation in one year of experience to the widow/divorcee candidates in holding/acquiring the requisite qualification in terms of R.16 pursuant to advertisement dt.21-7-2015 & if such representation is made,it is expected from the State Government/ appointing authority to consider it sympathetically while exercising its power u/R 41 of the Rules,2015 and may be decided as early as possible."

Thus, while basing reliance on the above decision, learned

Single Judge rightly held that relaxation was liable to be granted

to the respondent vis-à-vis her Rajasthan State Certificate In

Information Technology Certificate.