Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Saroj Dhaka vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 1 April, 2022
Bench: Rekha Borana
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14348/2017
Saroj Dhaka Daughter Of Sh. Daulat Ram Dhaka, Wife of Sh.
Suresh Kumar, by caste Jat, resident of Village Thalori, Post
Inderpura, Tehsil and District Churu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Rajasthan through the Secretary, Medical
and Health Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Directorate Medical and Health Services,
Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. The Additional Director (Administration), Medical and
Health Services, Tilak Marg, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur.
4. Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer. Through its
Secretary.
5. Chief Medical and Health Officer, Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. C.R. Choudhary
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Karan Singh Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
01/04/2022
Counsels are at consensus that the present matter is covered
by the decision passed by the Division Bench of this Court in
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum & Anr. (D.B.
Special Appeal (W) No.534/2005), decided on 12.01.2022 and
another order in Santosh Swami Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. (D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.33/2021), decided on
08.03.2022.
(2 of 3) [CW-14348/2017]
In the case of Santosh Swami (supra) the Division Bench
observed as under: -
"Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the reason for upholding the results
of the appellant in the matter of appointment
pursuant to advertisement dated 18.06.2018 is
on account of dispute with regard to recognition
of qualification of Adeeb-Mahir. He would
submit that in relation to earlier advertisement
of the year 2000, involving identical issue of
recognition of Adeeb-Mahir qualification, this
Court vide order dated 12.01.2022 passed in
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 534/2005 has held that
all such qualifications issued prior to recall in
the year 2011, have to be recognized.
Therefore, it is contended that the issue
raised by the appellant is squarely covered by
the aforesaid judgment.
Counsel for the State would submit that
the order passed in SAW No. 534/2005 was
related to only those cases where the result
was withheld in the matter of
selection/appointment pursuant to
advertisement of 2000, while in the present
case, withholding of result was pursuant to
advertisement of 2018. He would further
submit that in the aforesaid decision, relief has
been granted by this Court directing the State
authorities to consider case of the appellants
therein for appointment for the post in question
according to merit position. He would submit
that though on legal issue this case is also
convered, but appointments would be subject
to availability of posts.
We find that the issue raised in this appeal
is squarely covered by order dated 12.01.2022
passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 534/2005
and as in the present case, admittedly, the
qualification was obtained prior to withdrawal of
recognition in the year 2011, the appellant, in
this case, would also be entitled to similar relief
as has been granted in the other case.
It goes without saying that the direction,
which has been given in other case is also to be
given in this case, would be subject to
availability of the posts.
Accordingly this appeal is also disposed off
with a direction to the State authorities to
consider the appellant for appointment for the
post in question according to merit position and
if appointed, to grant all consequential benefits
(3 of 3) [CW-14348/2017]
except back wages for the past period. In other
words, the appellant would have the benefit of
seniority for the past period from the date the
person below the petitioner in merit list was
appointed."
In view of the submissions made, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is disposed of in light of and with similar directions
as given in the case of Santosh Swami (supra).
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
42-AnilKC/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
