Beena Kumari vs The State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 2629 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11214/2018

1. Beena Kumari D/o Shri Rajeng, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Nathukhedi, Post Khamera, Tehsil Ghantol, District Banswara (Raj.).

2. Ramesh Chandra Ganava S/o Shri Shambhu Lal Ganava, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Nani Padar, Post Maina Padar, Tehsil Anandpuri, Distt. Banswara (Raj.).

3. Balwant Singh S/o Shri Gulab Singh, Aged About 28 Years,R/o Machhara Saath, Tehsil Sajjangarh, District Banswara (Raj.).

4. Dhulchand Damor S/o Shri Valjee Damore, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Motapada, Post Dungra Chota, Panchayat Samiti Sajjangarh, District Banswara (Raj.).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Department Of Elementary Education, Bikaner (Raj.).

2. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Banswara (Raj.).

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :     Mr. P.R. Mehta
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG with
                                Mr. Rishi Soni.



            HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

                                     Order

15/02/2022

The present petition has been filed against the non-

consideration of the petitioners for appointment on the post of

Teacher Grade III (Level-I). The case of the petitioners in the

present petition is that although they were having the

qualifications of Senior Secondary and REET, as required in terms

of the advertisement and although they had secured the marks

higher than the cut off marks, they have not been considered for

appointment.

(2 of 4) [CW-11214/2018]

At the time of filing of the writ petition, the prayer of the

petitioners was for consideration of the qualification of BSTC

acquired by them to be declared as a valid qualification and for

their consideration for appointment on the basis of the said

qualification.

The writ petition of the petitioners was filed in the year

2018. On 09.03.2021, an additional affidavit was filed and it was

submitted that although the petitioners No.2 and 3 were

graduates, the degree/mark list of their graduation could not be

submitted alongwith application forms inadvertently and therefore,

the same may now be considered and they may be declared

eligible and be afforded appointment. The said affidavit makes a

mention of the judgments passed in Civil Writ Petition

No.10961/2018; Kripa Maida vs. State of Rajasthan and

Civil Writ Petition No.10749/2018 Niraj Kumar Patidar vs.

State. It has been submitted in the additional affidavit that the

case of the petitioners No.2 and 3 be considered in light of the

said judgments and they may also be afforded the appointment

being graduates.

Per contra, counsel for the respondents submitted that the

said ground as averred by the petitioners No.2 and 3 in the

additional affidavit was never raised by the petitioners in the writ

petition and therefore, the same cannot be considered at this

belated stage. Further, the counsel submitted that the vacancies

which pertains to the year 2018 have been filled up and the last

waiting list has been operated on 29.12.2021. Therefore, no

vacancies in the category of ST (in which the petitioners applied)

exist as of date and therefore, the petitioners cannot be granted

the benefit. Counsel argued that in the case of Naresh Chand

(3 of 4) [CW-11214/2018]

Patel vs. State of Rajasthan and others; S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.279/2021, the Court interfered only because of the

fact that the posts were lying vacant and the process of the

recruitment was under way and therefore, the present petition

cannot be held to be covered by the case of Naresh Chand Patel

(supra).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

A bare perusal of the pleadings as made in the petition

makes it clear that the petitioners filed the petition only on the

ground that their qualification of BSTC should be considered to be

a valid qualification for the purpose of consideration of their

appointment. It was nowhere the case of the petitioners in the

writ petition that they are possessing the qualification of

graduation and therefore the same be considered. It is only after

passing of the judgment of Naresh Chand Patel (supra) on

23.02.2021 that an additional affidavit has been filed on

09.03.2021 with a prayer to consider the case of the petitioners

No.2 and 3 in view of the case of Naresh Chand Patel (supra).

The said prayer of the petitioners cannot be considered for the

following reasons:

(i) In case of Naresh Chand Patel (supra), it was the specific

ground of the petitioner therein that due to inadvertence he had

not submitted the degree of graduation alongwith the application

form and the same be considered. In the present matter no such

pleadings was ever made by the petitioners and neither was the

said case set up.

(ii) There was a specific ground in the case of Naresh Chand

Patel (supra) that on the date of the decision of the matter, the

(4 of 4) [CW-11214/2018]

seats were vacant and the process of recruitment was under way.

It was also the specific finding of the Court that the said order was

passed only to balance the equity and having regard to the facts

of that particular case. The judgment of Naresh Chand Patel

(supra) cannot be termed to be judgment-in-rem and therefore

cannot be applied in the present matter because of the facts of the

present matter.

(iii) It is the specific submission of the counsel for the

respondents that no seat is vacant as on date and therefore too,

the request of the petitioners to be considered cannot be

entertained at this stage.

However, it is made clear that if any vacancy is existing till

date or arise in future because of the non-joining of any candidate

or any other circumstances, petitioners No.2 and 3 would be

considered for appointment if they file a representation for that

purpose. So far as the petitioners No.1 and 4 are concerned, it has

been admitted by the counsel that no observations can be made in

their favour as they did not possess the minimum qualifying marks

in the Senior secondary and they were not graduate too.

Therefore, the petitioners No.1 and 4 would not be entitled to any

relief.

With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

(REKHA BORANA),J

Ashutosh-24

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)