Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalpana Kumari Menariya vs State Of Rajasthan on 25 March, 2021
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
(1 of 4) [CW-3871/2021]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3871/2021
Kalpana Kumari Menariya D/o Shri Heera Lal, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Near Old Small Water Tank , House No 189, Ward No
2, Chanderiya , Distt. Chittorgarh (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary ,
Medical And Health Services (Group-Iii) , Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat , Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services , Rajasthan ,
Tilak Marg , Swasthya Bhawan , Jaipur
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Now Director
(Non-Gazetted) , Medical And Health Services , Rajasthan
, Tilak Marg , Swasthya Bhawan , Jaipur
----Respondents
Connect with
(2) S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5024/2021
Uma Shree Bharati Shringi D/o Jagdish Chandra Sharma, Aged
About 27 Years, Shri Babulal Sukhwal, 50, Krishna Vatika, 3Rd,
Madhuvan, Senthi, Chittorgarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Services (Group-Iii), Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical And
Health Services, Rajasthan, Tilak Marg, Swasthya
Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. Priyanka Joshi D/o Anil Joshi, Nurse Grade Ii, C/o
Medical Officer, Communit7Y Health Centre, Katunda,
Tehsil Begu, Dist. Chittorgarh (Raj.)
----Respondents
(2 of 4) [CW-3871/2021]
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Bishnoi
Mr. Jog Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
25/03/2021
1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue
involved in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by
judgment dated 16.02.2021 passed by this Court in the case of
Savita Manmiya Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (SBCWP
No.2835/2020).
2. Mr. Mehta, learned counsel for the respondent-State though
is not in a position to dispute the fact that the issue in-principle is
covered in petitioners' favour by the judgment of Savita Manmiya
(supra), he however submitted that petitioners have approached
belatedly (March, 2021). He argued that if the petitioners had any
grievance against non-grant of bonus marks, they ought to have
approached this court within time, as had been done by petitioner
in Savita manmiya (supra).
3. Highlighting that final merit list was issued on 24.01.2020
and appointment order to all eligible candidates have been issued
way back in April, 2020, he submitted that now the State has
operated waiting list and thus, any indulgence granted to them, at
this stage, would affect rights of the candidates from waiting list
who have been called for further process.
4. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that petitioners, namely kalpana Kuamri and Uma Shree Bharati
(3 of 4) [CW-3871/2021]
secured 43.626 and 43.695 respectively and if bonus marks (20)
are awarded, their marks become more than the cutoff of their
category (General Female), i.e., 58.192 and they fall in merit.
Learned counsel further submitted that immediately on declaration
of individual marks and cut off marks on 22.07.2019, the
petitioners, on 26.06.2019, had furnished online grievance on the
official portal of the respondents as they were awarded "0" bonus
marks. Petitioners were under the bona fide impression that the
respondents will consider their grievance. However on issuance of
the select list on 18.02.2021, the petitioners realised that the
respondents have issued second list without appropriately
considering their grievance.
5. In considered opinion of this Court, the petitioners' cause of
action arose when the first list was issued i.e. 26.06.2019. Though
they filed their grievance but remained in hibernation till issuance
of the second list.
6. As such the petitioners who have been sleeping over their
rights for a considerable period of about 21 months, cannot claim
their rights over and above the persons who have been included in
the second list issued on 18.02.2021.
7. Protracted remedies ought not beget reliefs germinating
peremptory or preferential rights. But at the same time, relief
cannot be refused altogether; the same needs to be molded to
balance the equity.
8. A candidate, who has been sitting on fence and has
approached the Court only upon realizing that a candidate like her
has been granted relief from the Court, has to wait for some more
time, till the list issued on 18.02.2021 is exhausted.
(4 of 4) [CW-3871/2021]
9. The writ petitions are thus, allowed in light of Savita
Manmiya (supra), however with a caveat. The respondents are
directed to award requisite bonus marks to the petitioners, on the
basis of their experience as Nursing Tutor cum Clinical Instructor,
obviously after verifying the certificates under consideration.
10. The petitioners' candidature shall be considered only after
exhaustion of the candidates from the list dated 18.02.2021. In
case any seat in petitioners' category remains vacant after
exhaustion of the list 18.02.2021, respondent No. 2 will issue
notice to the petitioners for document verification or further
process of the recruitment.
11. Stay applications also stand disposed of.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
40-197-Rahul/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
