Rajasthan High Court
Yogeshwari Shekhawat Daughter Of ... vs High Court Of Judicature on 11 November, 2021
Bench: Akil Kureshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8112/2021
1. Yogeshwari Shekhawat Daughter Of Shri Raj Singh
Shekhawat, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Vpo
Luhakanakhurd, Vaya Bhabhru, Tehsil Viratnagar, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Priya Agarwal Daughter Of Shri Lal Chand Agarwal, Aged
About 30 Years, Resident Of Sandosh Nagar, Ganga
Jamnuna Crossing, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. High Court Of Judicature, For Rajasthan Through Its
Registrar General, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Law, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
3. Registrar (Examination), High Court Of Judicature For
Rajasthan, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Saransh Saini
Mr. Ankit Bhati on behalf of
Mr. Prahlad Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
11/11/2021
The petitioners are belonging to physically handicapped
category. They have raised certain issues with respect to the on
going recruitment process for the post of Civil Judge in the State
of Rajasthan for which the advertisement was issued on
22/07/2021.
(2 of 3) [CW-8112/2021]
Counsel for the petitioners has raised the following three
grievances:-
(i) Counsel pointed out that by virtue of the Rajasthan Judicial
Service Rules, 2010 as amended from time to time presently,
there is a requirement for carry forward of unfilled reserved
vacancies for the handicapped candidates. However, prior to
01/08/2020, such carry forward rule did not exist. The request of
the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even the earlier
unfilled vacancies should be carry forward and be included in the
present selection process.
As noted above, the High Court in the recruitment rules in
the present form has accepted the principle of carry forward of
unfilled vacancies. However, in the unamended rules, there was no
such provision, therefore, directions contrary to the rules cannot
be granted. Unless and until the rule is declared unconstitutional
on being challenged and such challenge is sustained, no such
direction for the past vacancies can be given. This issue therefore
must rest at this stage.
(ii) Counsel submitted that the advertisement for recruitment
did not specify that additional time may be granted to persons
facing physical challenges. Counsel however agreed that in the
reply the High Court Administration has clarified this position.
Whether in the future advertisements, such specific declaration
should be made or not in the advertisement should be left to be
decided by the High Court on administrative side.
(iii) Third demand of the petitioner is that separate relaxed
standard of passing should be provided to such candidates.
Learned counsel for the High Court Administration however
drew our attention to a judgment of Division Bench of this Court
(3 of 3) [CW-8112/2021]
dated 16/05/2014 in Vikram Singh Chouhan Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3115/2014), where
such an issue was dealt with and rejected.
It is essentially a policy matter which can be considered only
at the level of the High Court on administrative side.
With these observations, this petition is disposed of along
with applications.
(REKHA BORANA),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
Anil Goyal/BM Gandhi-PS/97
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
