Sunil Bishnoi vs Ms. Manju
2022 Latest Caselaw 659 Raj

(1 of 3) [SAW-632/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 632/2021

Sunil Bishnoi S/o Ramuram, Aged About 25 Years, Khejarli Khurd, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Appellant Versus

1. Ms. Manju D/o Shri Budha Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Bishnoiyon Ki Dhani, Jaleli Ahicha, Post Jaleli Faujdaran, Tehsil And District Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Presently Posted As Teacher Grade Iii, At Govt. Upper Primary School Baniyawas, Tehsil Luni, District Jodhpur.

2. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Dy. Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Director, Department Of Elementary Education, Bikaner.

4. The Joint Director, Department Of Education, Jodhpur Zone, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

5. The District Education Officer, Elementary Education, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

6. The Chief Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti Luni, District Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Parvez Khan Moyal through V.C.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma through V.C.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

12/01/2022

I.A. No. 01/2021:

This application has been filed by the appellant seeking leave

to appeal against the judgment dated 07.09.2021 passed by the

(2 of 3) [SAW-632/2021]

learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9839/2021. The

proposed applicant is the husband of the original petitioner. The

petitioner lady was appointed as a Teacher in Government School

and she joined the duty on 19.02.2019. According to the husband,

at the time of applying and joining the service, the wife had made

false declaration that she was unmarried, though the marriage

had taken place on 06.02.2017. It appears that there are serious

matrimonial disputes between the husband and wife. The husband

therefore made complaint to the administration about the false

declaration made by the wife. The department issued a charge-

sheet on 02.07.2021 under Rule 16 of the Rajasthan Civil Services

(CCA) Rules 1958 alleging that she had made false declaration.

The petitioner challenged the said charge-sheet before the learned

Single Judge contending that the petitioner had not committed

any misconduct. Learned counsel for the original petitioner

submitted that the petitioner had not secured appointment on any

special quota for unmarried women. Her marital status had no

relation with her securing the service on the Government post.

Only with a view to harass the petitioner, the husband has made a

complaint to the authorities.

Learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in any view of

the matter, the case is not fit for major penalty and if at all the

department may proceed against the petitioner under Rule 17 of

the CCA Rules for minor misconduct and penalty. It is this

judgment which the husband has challenged in appeal. Since he

has not joined as respondent in the writ petition, he has filed an

application for leave to appeal.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we do not find

that the husband has any locus standi to challenge the judgment

(3 of 3) [SAW-632/2021]

in question. The issue is of alleged misconduct committed by

Government servant in the process of filing certain declaration

while entering the Government service. Whether she has

committed any misconduct or not and if so, whether such

misconduct should be visited with minor or major penalty, are not

the issues with which the husband is affected in any manner. He

therefore lacks locus standi to question the judgment of the

learned Single Judge.

The application for leave to appeal is rejected.

Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed.

                                   (REKHA BORANA),J                                           (AKIL KURESHI),CJ


                                    58-jayesh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)