Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Anil Kumar Trivedi vs State Of Rajasthan on 24 February, 2022
Bench: Dinesh Mehta, Rameshwar Vyas
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 11/2020
Anil Kumar Trivedi S/o Mani Lal Trivedi, Aged About 31 Years,
Village And Post Varsinghpur, Tehsil Sangwara, District
Dungarpur Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Secretary, Department Of Rural And Panchayati Raj,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Director, Elementary Education Department, Bikaner,
District Bikaner, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Acharya
Mr. OP Sangwa
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pankaj Sharma, AAG
Mr. Rishi Soni
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS
Order
24/02/2022
1. The present petition seeks to review the order dated
06.05.2019 passed by the Division Bench of which one of us
(Dinesh Mehta, J) was a member.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Central
Government (NCTE) has issued a notification dated 13.11.2019 as
directed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in case of Neeraj Kumar
Rai & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 14 SCC 608
and argued that in light of the notification so issued, the petitioner
(2 of 3) [WRW-11/2020]
is entitled to be appointed pursuant to the recruitment notification
dated 31.07.2018.
3. Learned counsel further argued that in view of the following
proviso appended with the notification dated 13.11.2019, the
petitioner having got admission in the B.Ed./B.E.Ed. prior to
29.07.2011 is to be treated eligible.
"Provided that minimum percentage of marks in
graduation shall not be applicable to those incumbents
who had already taken admission to the Bachelor of
Education or Bachelor of Elementary Education or
equivalent course prior to the 29th July, 2011."
4. Mr. Pankaj Sharma, learned AAG appearing on behalf of the
State submitted that the notification in question has been issued
on 13.11.2019, admittedly after the Division Bench had passed
the judgment in petitioner's case holding the petitioner to be
ineligible.
5. In other words his argument has been that the order passed
by this Court cannot be said to be suffering from any apparent
error on the face of record because the notification being relied
upon by the petitioner has been issued much after the Division
Bench has decided petitioner's case.
6. It was also argued that the entire recruitment has taken
place as per the law prevailing on the date of advertisement dated
31.07.2018 and there might be many other candidates who would
be held eligible if the subject proviso to the notification dated
13.11.2019 is taken into account and if the relief as claimed by
the petitioner is granted to him, it would be inequitous to similarly
situated candidates.
(3 of 3) [WRW-11/2020]
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of
the view that the judgment in petitioner's case was passed in light
of Division Bench judgment in Sushil Sompura & Ors. Vs. State
(Education) & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3964/2011) and
Anil Kumar Trivedi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B.S.A.W.
No.514/2019). The notification which is being heavily relied upon
by the petitioner has been issued much after the Division Bench
rejected petitioner's appeals.
8. It is a settled proposition of law that review jurisdiction can
be exercised if there is an apparent error on the face of record.
9. Needless to state that the notification dated 13.11.2019 was
never brought to the notice of the Court. Rather, the petitioner
has preferred the present review petition only after coming to
know of the notification dated 13.11.2019 (with a delay of 203
days).
10. The order under consideration does not suffer from any error
much less an error apparent on the face of record.
11. Hence, application seeking condonation of delay so also
review petition is dismissed.
(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J (DINESH MEHTA),J
9-Amar/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
