Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Soni Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 11 March, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1331/2022
1. Soni Devi D/o Sheo Ram Kumawat, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Plot No. 18A, Jai Narayan Vyas Colony, Nawa City,
Nagaur, Rajasthan.
2. Meera Devi Choudhary D/o Shyoram Choudhary, Aged
About 35 Years, R/o Village Sherpura Post Mahlan, Phagi,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Asha Sharma D/o Radhey Shyam Sharma, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Village Sultaniya Post Pachala Tehsil Phagi,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Women And Child
Development Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Chairmen, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Subordinate And Ministerial
Service Selection Board, Jaipur District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr Shreekant Verma
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Judgment / Order
11/03/2022
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to
question the validity of order dated 14.10.2020 (Annx.8) passed
by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board whereby the list of finally
selected candidates for the post of Supervisor (Women)
(Aanganwadi Karyakarta quota) has been issued.
(2 of 3) [CW-1331/2022]
It is, inter alia, submitted by counsel for the petitioners that
pursuant to the advertisement, when the respondents issued the
result, the same was questioned by the candidates Sukhveer Kaur
and Bhagwanti by filing Writ Petition No.2257/2020, which came
to be decided on 03.03.2020 whereby, as the respondents during
pendency of the writ petition changed the marking scheme, the
petition was disposed of. The petitioners in the earlier writ petition
filed Special Appeal (DBSAW No.277/2020), which came to be
decided on 12.10.2020, wherein the judgment of the learned
Single Judge was set aside, the writ petition filed by the appellants
was allowed and the result declared by the Selection Board was
set aside.
The petitioners, who were selected on account of revision of
the result after the judgment of the learned Single Judge,
approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment
passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench; which Special Leave
Petition was rejected, inter alia, with the following order:
"Admittedly, the petitioner in the present matter had not
taken any steps to the writ proceedings before the High
Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. In these
circumstances, since the petitioner did not take any steps to
espouse his remedies in accordance with law, we see no
reason to entertain the Special Leave Petition under Article
136 of the Constitution. However, we clarify that the Special
Leave Petition is being dismissed only on the above ground
and we have not gone into the correctness of the order of
the High Court which is being challenged in the Special
Leave Petition.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed."
(3 of 3) [CW-1331/2022]
It is now claimed by the petitioners that the result declared
on 14.10.2020, pursuant to judgment of the Division Bench, is
incorrect and therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.
The plea sought to be raised by the petitioners is not
available to them. Once the judgment has been delivered by the
Division Bench, taking a particular view and against said order,
Special Leave Petition filed by petitioners was not entertained by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the same has become final and
therefore, now at the instance of the petitioners, this Court can
not re-examine the validity of the order passed by the Division
Bench. The raising of the plea itself is not maintainable.
Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petition. The
same is, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
48-MMA/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
