Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Chandra Kiran Meena vs State And Anr on 2 February, 2022
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Madan Gopal Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 919/2017
Chandra Kiran Meena D/o Shri Himmat Lal Meena, aged about
38 years, By Caste Meena, R/o Bhuri Ghati, Tehsil Sajjangarh,
Dist.- Banswara Raj.
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Rural
Development And Panchayati Raj Department, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Chief Executive Officer, Udaipur Raj.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : None present.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG, through V.C.
Mr. Sunil Beniwal, AAG through V.C.
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS
Order
02/02/2022
This appeal is filed by the original petitioner to challenge the
judgment dated 29.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9992/2017. The petitioner had passed
Adeeb and Adeeb-e-Mahir from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh and claimed
that the same would be equivalent to Secondary and Senior
Secondary respectively. On such basis, she had sought
participation in the recruitment process initiated by the State for
the purpose of appointment on the post of LDC in Government
Schools. The qualifications were not recognized, upon which the
petitioner had filed the writ petition. The writ petition was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the
recognition of the qualification was withdrawn in the year 1991.
(2 of 3) [SAW-919/2017]
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that she
acquired the educational qualification in the year 2008 and 2009
when there was no such withdrawal of the recognition was not
accepted.
This issue came up for consideration in the case of State of
Rajasthan and Others Vs. Firdos Tarannum (D.B. Civil
Special Appeal (W) No.534/2005 - decided on
12.01.2022). The learned Single Judge had accepted the case of
the petitioner for recognition of qualification of the same nature
from the same institute. The appeal of the State Government was
not accepted. Following observations made in the case of Firdos
Tarannum (supra) may be noted:
"Under the circumstances, we do not find that
the learned Single Judge committed any error. We
may record that in view of the conflict between the
two decisions of the Division Benches of this Court in
the cases of Altaf Bano (supra) and Firdos Tarannum
(supra), a reference was made to the larger bench.
In Firdos Tarannum (supra) Supreme Court has
remanded the proceedings before this Court and
which are now being decided by this judgment which
in any case is not in conflict with the view expressed
in the case of Altaf Bano(supra). The reference to
the larger bench would therefore become one of no
consequence.
The learned Single Judge while disposing of the
writ petition had directed the State authorities to
consider the case of the petitioner for appointment
on the post of Teacher Grade-III Urdu (minority
language) pursuant to the said advertisement dated
07.11.2000 and if appointed she would be granted
all consequential benefits. Several years have
passed and the litigation remained pending at one
stage or the other. We do not think that the State
exchequer should be burdened with the payment of
idle wages for the past period to the petitioner even
if she were to be appointed. Under the
circumstances, while disposing of this appeal, the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is modified by
holding that the State authorities shall consider the
petitioner for appointment to the post in question
according to her merit position and if appointed, she
(3 of 3) [SAW-919/2017]
shall be granted all consequential benefits except
back wages for the past period. In other words, the
petitioner would have the benefit of seniority for the
past period from the date the person below the
petitioner in merit list was appointed.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly."
Under the circumstances, this appeal is also disposed of
along the same line as in the case of Firdos Tarannum (supra).
The petitioner would be offered appointment and her past period
would be regulated as provided in the said judgment dated
12.01.2022.
(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ
144-a.asopa/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
