Rajasthan High Court
Vandana Sharma D/O Mahesh Sharma vs The State Of Rajasthan on 4 July, 2022
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3210/2022
Vandana Sharma D/o Mahesh Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Village Shiwala, Post Baglai, Tehsil Wazirpur, District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Medical,
Health And Family Welfare Department, Govt. Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Directorate, Ayurved Department,
Rajasthan, Ajmer.
3. The Deputy Secretary, Ayurved And Indian Medicine
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
4. Registrar, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan Rajasthan
Ayurveda University, Kadwad, Jodhpur-Nagaur Highway
Road, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.P. Saini.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. C.L. Saini, AAG.
Mr. Vishesh Sharma.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
04/07/2022
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in
this writ petition has been considered and decided by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this court at Principal seat Jodhpur in the matter
of Sudarshana Dadhich Vs. The State of Rajasthan (S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No.2272/2022) where in on 24.02.2022,
the following order was passed:-
(2 of 3) [CW-3210/2022]
"This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner aggrieved against non-inclusion
of her name in the provisional merit list
published by the respondents in the
category of EWS for the post of
Compounder / Nurse Junior Grade.
Submissions have been made that the
petitioner applied in the category of EWS
after applying for the certificate on
16.07.2021 vide receipt Annex.4. When the
petitioner was called for document
verification, the petitioner produced her
certificate dated 04.08.2021, which was
based on financial year 2020-21 and valid
for the year 2021-22. However, the
respondents apparently on account of
Clause 9.2 of the advertisement, did not
take into consideration the said certificate
and did not give benefit of her status as
EWS, which is not justified.
Learned counsel for the respondents
made submissions that Clause 9.2 of the
advertisement is very clear, wherein none of
the certificate procured after the last date
of application, was to be taken into
consideration by the respondents and
admittedly, the petitioner has produced the
certificate dated 04.08.2021 and the last
date of application was 23.07.2021, the
rejection of the candidature of the
petitioner is justified.
I have considered the submissions
made by learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the material available on
record.
As noticed herein-before, the
certificate of EWS is issued based on the
income of the previous financial year and
the certificate is valid for the year
subsequent. In the present case, based on
the financial year 2020-21, the petitioner
has been granted certificate for 2021-22.
The period for 2021-22 essentially would
start from 01.04.2021 till 31.03.2022 and
as the certificate, can only be issued based
on the previous year's income, the
petitioner was required to apply for a
certificate, which was done by her before
the last date of application, however, the
same was issued after the last date of
application i.e. 23.07.2021, on 04.08.2021.
From the certificate produced by the
petitioner, apparently she is entitled for
benefit as EWS and only on account of the
fact that certificate was issued with delay to
(3 of 3) [CW-3210/2022]
the petitioner, excluding her from the
benefit of her status as EWS, does not
appear to be justified when she is entitled
based on the certificate to take benefit from
01.04.2021 to 31.03.2022.
Consequently, the writ petition filed by
the petitioner is allowed. The respondents
are directed to take into consideration the
certificate of the petitioner for the purpose
of grant of benefit as EWS and in case, she
is otherwise eligible, include her name in
the provisional merit list."
Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have not
disputed the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner,
however, submits that they will consider the case of the petitioner
against the vacant seat under the EWS category.
In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands disposed
of in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of
this court in the matter of Sudarshana Dadhich (supra).
However, the respondents are directed to consider the case of the
petitioner against the available seats of EWS category as per her
merit.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J
MG/112
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
