Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Asha Kumari Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 26 November, 2021
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13098/2021
Asha Kumari Meena D/o Shri Gautam Lal Ji Meena Widow of Late
Roshan Lal Meena, aged about 28 Years, Resident of Amba
Mataji Ki Ghati, Titardi Main Road, Jaisamand, District Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary to the
Govt., Home Department, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The Director General of Police, Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
3. The District Superintendent of Police, Udaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rishabh Shrimali.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG &
Mr. Kailash Choudhary.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
26/11/2021
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved
against the order dated 19.07.2021 (Annex.9) whereby the
petitioner has been informed that she was ineligible for
appointment on the post of Constable.
The petitioner applied pursuant to Advertisement dated
04.12.2019 (Annex.3) for the post of Constable (General-TSP). In
the application form (Annex.4) the petitioner indicated number of
living children borne before 01.06.2002 as three, and total
(2 of 4) [CW-13098/2021]
children three. Thereafter, after undergoing the written test, PET
and PST, the petitioner was selected, however, when the petitioner
filled up form for character verification and gave details of her
children, it was noticed that though the petitioner indicated that
three children were born to her prior to 01.06.2002, they were
born after 01.06.2002 and consequently the order dated
09.07.2021 was passed by the competent authority referring to
Clause 8 (ii) of the Advertisement indicating the petitioner is
ineligible and consequently she has not been accorded
appointment.
Counsel for the petitioner made submissions that the
petitioner has disclosed in her application form that she had three
children and as the petitioner was permitted to participate in the
selection process, the respondents are estopped from coming to
the conclusion that the petitioner is ineligible. Submissions have
been made that as in a case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Rama Vishwanatha Dandge vs. State of Maharashtra [Civil
Appeal No.6624/2018 decided on 12.07.2018, the petitioner
may also be accorded benefit despite the fact that she has three
children born after the cut-off date.
Counsel for the respondents made submissions that the
petitioner had wrongly filled up information in the application
form, based on which she participated in the selection process and
as such she cannot claim any estoppel. Further submissions have
been made that as the petitioner is ineligible, she is not entitled to
any relief.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for
the parties and perused the material on record.
(3 of 4) [CW-13098/2021]
A bare look at the application form filled up by the petitioner
(Annex.4) indicates that she has indicated three children born
before 01.06.2002, zero children after 01.06.2002 and total three.
Once the petitioner has indicated having given birth to three
children before 01.06.2002, she was eligible and as such was
permitted to participate in the selection process; it is only when
the petitioner fill up her personal information and declaration
alongwith the documents, it was noticed by the respondents that
three children were born to her after the cut-off date i.e.
01.06.2002 and immediately thereafter she was informed about
her ineligibility.
As the petitioner gave incorrect information in her application
form and participated in the selection process, she cannot seek
estoppel against the respondents. Even otherwise, once is is found
that the petitioner is ineligible, there cannot be any estoppel
against the Statute.
So far as reliance place on judgment in Rama Vishwanatha
Dandge's case (supra) is concerned, the power was exercised by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of
India, which power is not available to this Court, inasmuch as the
order ends as infra:
".... We further make it clear that this judgment
is passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
this case and the same may not be treated as a
precedent."
In view of above fact situation, wherein the petitioner based
on incorrect information in the application form participated in the
selection process, got selection, where after her selection has
(4 of 4) [CW-13098/2021]
been cancelled on account of her ineligibility, no case for
interference is made out.
The writ petition being bereft of any substance fails and the
same is hereby dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
26-DJ/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
