Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kamla And Ors vs State And Ors on 4 March, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14121/2017
1. Kamla D/o Shri Raghunath Meghwal, R/o Gram Raysingh,
Post Garal, Tehsil And District Barmer.
2. Rekha D/o Jetha Ram, R/o Janiyo Ka Magara, Neri Nadi,
Tehsil Dhorimanna, District Barmer.
3. Laxmi Kumari Meena D/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Meena,
R/o Sitapura, Post Mandavar, Tehsil And District Tonk. At
Present Residing At Garal Raysingh, Post Garal, Tehsil And
District Barmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Additional Director Admn., Medical And Health Services,
Health Bhawan, Jaipur.
3. Director, State Health And Family Welfare Sansthan, Nh 8
Bypass Rd, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004.
4. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Health
Bhawan, Jaipur.
5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Barmer.
6. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Tonk.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13434/2017
1. Nirma D/o Shri Ramdayal Jajra, Category- Obc, Resident
Of Village/ Post Butati, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur
Rajasthan.
2. Manoj Bishnoi D/o Shri Hariram Bishnoi, Category- Obc,
Resident Of Quarter No. 250, Police Line, Nagaur
Rajasthan.
3. Bhagwati D/o Shri Roopa Ram, Castegory- Sc, Resident
Of Shiv Colony, Deh Road, Nagaur Rajasthan.
4. Krishna D/o Shri Ramchandra, Category- Obc-Widow,
Resident Of Shiv Colony, Deh Road, Nagaur Rajasthan.
5. Siya D/o Shri Ram Kailash, Category- Obc-Widow,
Resident Of Village/post Firod, Tehsil Mundwa, District
Nagaur Raj..
(2 of 3)
6. Laxmi Devi D/o Shri Hanuman Ram, Category- Obc,
Resident Of 13, K.no. 26, Shiv Shakti Nagar, Banar Road,
Nandri, Jodhpur Raj..
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health Services, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Additional Director Admn., Medical And Health Services,
Health Bhawan, Jaipur
3. Director, State Health And Family Welfare Sansthan, Nh 8
Bypass Rd, Jhalana Institutional Area, Jhalana Doongri,
Jaipur, Rajasthan 302004.
4. The Mission Director, National Health Mission, Health
Bhawan, Jaipur.
5. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Nagaur.
6. Chief Medical And Health Officer, Jodhpur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sukesh Bhati.
Mr. Y.P. Khileree.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. K.S. Rajpurohit, AAG through VC
with Mr. Shreyansh Mehta.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
04/03/2022
Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue raised in
the present writ petition is squarely covered by order of this Court
in Usha vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition
No.2251/2020 decided on 11.02.2022, wherein in identical
circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner therein was
allowed and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner may also
be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute the fact
that the issue raised in the present writ petition is similar to that
in the case of Usha (supra).
(3 of 3)
In this case of Usha (supra), this Court referring to Division
Bench judgment in State of Rajasthan vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum &
Anr : D.B. Special Appeal (W) No.534/2005, decided on
12.01.2022, inter-alia came to the following conclusion and
directed as under: -
"A perusal of the above would reveal that the Division
Bench has held that the qualification of Adeeb obtained from
Jamia Urdu, Aligarh is equivalent to High School.
Further, as the equivalence was withdrawn by the
Board of Secondary Education in the year 2011, the
withdrawal would be prospective only.
In the present case, the petitioner has passed Adeeb
in the year 2010 and as such, in view of the judgment in
the case of Ms. Firdos Tarannum (supra), she is eligible.
Learned counsel for the respondents though does not
dispute the fact that the issue raised is covered by the
judgment in the case of Ms. Firdos Tarannum (supra),
however, submits that the State is in the process of
questioning the validity of the said order before Hon'ble
Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition.
Be it as it may, the issue raised is squarely covered by
Division Bench judgment in the case of Ms. Firdos Tarannum
(supra).
Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner
is allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the
result of the petitioner and in case, the petitioner stands in
merit, accord her appointment as per her merit, if she is
otherwise eligible.
The petitioner would be entitled to all consequential
benefits w.e.f. the date, person lower in merit to the
petitioner was accorded appointment, however, the
petitioner would be entitled to monetary benefits from the
date, appointment is accorded to the petitioner."
In view of above fact situation, the petition filed by the
petitioners is allowed with similar directions as given in the case of
Usha (supra).
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
95&96-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
