Renu Goswami vs State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10629 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7395/2021

Renu Goswami W/o Shri Hanuman Bharti, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Gali No. 3, Ratanada, Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. The Director, Elementary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.

3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Rural Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Hari Singh Rajpurohit

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Judgment 13/07/2021 (1) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has

challenged the order dated 10.3.2021 whereby the petitioner's

representation for considering her candidature under Outstanding

Sports Persons' category has been rejected.

(2) The facts appertain for present purposes are that the

petitioner vied for the post of Teacher Grade-III Level-II pursuant

to recruitment notification dated 31.7.2018.

(3) While submitting her application form, the petitioner staked

her claim against the seats earmarked for Outstanding Sports

persons on the basis of certificate of participation in the 55 th

National School Games organized by Bidhannagar Sub-Divisional

School Sports Association and 56th National School Games held by

District Sports Office, Solapur, Maharashtra.

(2 of 6) [CW-7395/2021]

(4) By order dated 2.2.2021, petitioner's claim to be considered

under Outstanding Sports Persons' category was rejected by the

respondents.

(5) Feeling aggrieved of above decision dated 2.2.2021,

petitioner preferred a writ petition (SBCWP no.2705/2021) before

this Court. After arguing the said writ petition for some time,

learned counsel chose to agitate her cause before the respondents

for which a direction was sought to the respondents to consider

petitioner's representation in accordance with law. The writ

petition was thus, disposed of with such directions, vide order

dated 15.2.2021.

(6) The petitioner filed a representation, which came to be

rejected by the respondent No.2, vide order dated 10.03.2021,

inter alia, observing that once appointment has been given to any

of the candidates, a law coming into force subsequently, cannot be

applied to the recruitment.

(7) Mr. Hari Singh Rajpurohit, learned counsel for the petitioner,

challenging the rejection order dated 10.03.2021, argued that the

impugned order suffered from manifest error of law inasmuch as

the respondent No.2 has placed reliance upon an order dated

02.05.2018, passed by Jaipur Bench of this Court in SB Contempt

Petition No.330/2018, which was not at all relevant. He submitted

that the respondent No.2 has not at all considered the judgments

cited by the petitioner in her representation.

(8) Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the

notification dated 21.11.2019, incorporating amendment in the

relevant rules and submitted that as per the amended rules, a

candidate having participated at National level is to be treated an

(3 of 6) [CW-7395/2021]

Outstanding Sportsperson and since the notification dated

21.11.2019 is a beneficial piece of legislation, the same should be

applied to the pending recruitment.

(9) Learned counsel relied upon the decision dated 23.07.2018,

passed by this Court in the case of Manish Kumar Nagda & Ors.

Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP No.8529/2018) and argued

that on the same principles, the notification dated 21.11.2019 is

required to be applied to all the pending recruitments, including

present recruitment. He argued that the petitioner is undoubtedly

an Outstanding Sports Person in view of the amended provision as

she has participated in the National Level Sports.

(10) Heard.

(11) Impugned order refers to the order dated 02.05.2018,

passed by Jaipur Bench in Contempt Petition No.330/2018. Upon

perusal of the said order this Court feels that reliance upon the

order dated 02.05.2018 is totally misconceived.

(12) Be that as it may. A complete reading of the impugned order

dated 10.03.2021 reveals that petitioner's representation has

been rejected by observing that the recruitment was initiated vide

notification dated 31.07.2018 and subsequent amendment

introduced by notification dated 21.11.2019 cannot be applied

retrospectively.

(13) The precise controversy, which is to be delved into and

decided by this Court is, as to whether amendment brought vide

notification dated 21.11.2019 can be applied to the present

recruitment.

(14) Indisputably, the recruitment process was initiated vide

notification dated 31.07.2018 and the result was declared on

(4 of 6) [CW-7395/2021]

18.01.2021. The rules have been amended and persons having

taken part in national level sports have been included in the sweep

of Outstanding Sports Person. A simple look at Para 1(2) of the

notification dated 21.11.2019 clearly shows that the same has

been applied with immediate effect (from 21.11.2019).

(15) It is settled proposition of law that the eligibility of a

candidate has to be determined on the basis of rules which existed

on the date of issuance of recruitment notification or as on the last

date of submitting application form as has been laid down by

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in catena of judgments. The said view

has also been reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ashok Kumar Sharma & Ors. Vs. Chandra Shekhar & Ors. reported

in (1997) 4 SCC 18 and Ashok Kumar Sonkar Vs.Union of India &

Ors. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 54.

(16) As on 31.07.2018, the petitioner could not have been

considered as Outstanding Sportsperson on basis of the prevailing

rules. It is only after the amendment in the rules introduced by

the notification dated 21.11.2019, the petitioner can claim herself

to be an Outstanding Sportsperson.

(17) If the argument to apply the notification to pending

recruitment advanced by Mr. Hari Singh were to be accepted, then

it would lead to an anomalous situation. Many candidates who

had certificate(s) of participation in national level sports would be

deprived of being considered as outstanding sportsperson because

they might not have applied under the outstanding sportsperson

category on the basis of rules which held the field at the time of

submitting application, as the rules did not recognize such person

to be outstanding sports person.

(5 of 6) [CW-7395/2021]

(18) In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner having wrongfully

claimed herself to be outstanding sportsperson as per the law then

in vogue cannot take advantage of the subsequent amendment.

(19) Learned counsel has heavily relied on judgment dated

23.07.2018, rendered in the case of Manish Kumar Nagda (supra).

The said judgment is clearly distinguishable. Said case involved

The Scheduled Area (State of Rajasthan) Order, 2018 dated

19.05.2018, promulgated by Hon'ble the President of India, in

exercise of powers conferred by sub-paragraph (2) of Paragraph 6

of the Fifth Schedule to the Constitution of India reveals that it

has been made effective from the date of issuance. It is apparent

that such Order of 2018 issued by Hon'ble President of India

rescinded the earlier order, namely Scheduled Areas (State of

Rajasthan) Order, 1981, which was holding field; as a

consequence whereof, the position which emerged due to

promulgation of such order was that the earlier order ceased to

exist. Such being the position, the respondents were obliged to

decide candidatures of candidates on the basis of the Presidential

Order, which was in vogue at the time of ascertaining their

candidature.

(20) In other words, it was not a case of amendment of the rules

and as a matter of fact, it was a case of substitution of the very

law on the subject. The respondents, therefore, could rightly not

stick to the order, which stood superseded.

(21) As against this, the present case is a case of amendment in

the rules, by which certain categories of the candidates have been

included within the scope of outstanding sports persons-who have

taken part in National Level sports competition. Such being the

(6 of 6) [CW-7395/2021]

position, the amendment brought into force vide notification dated

21.11.2019 cannot be applied retrospectively.

(22) As an upshot of the foregoing discussion, this Court does not

find any merit and substance in petitioner's contention. The writ

petition is, therefore, dismissed.

(23) The stay application also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J

58-CPGoyal/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)