Durga Kumari Kharol vs State And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 4315 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5766/2016

Durga Kumari Kharol

----Petitioner Versus State And Ors

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.S. Jasol

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

Order

16/03/2022

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner applied for

the post of Forest Guard in pursuance to the advertisement dated

16.10.2015. She passed the written examination and was called

for Physical Efficiency Test to be held on 03.03.2016 and

04.03.2016 respectively. The grievance of the petitioner is that

she was pregnant and her pregnancy was due on 03.03.2016 and

therefore, she was not in a position to appear in the physical

efficiency test on the scheduled date. In these circumstances, she

moved to the respondent-authorities praying for extension of the

date of her physical efficiency test. The said request of the

petitioner was rejected against which the present writ petition has

been preferred.

Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment

passed in case of Urmila Devi Vs. State & Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.13307/2016 which was decided relying upon the

judgment passed in Anuradha Jhala Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3104/2016). In the cases of

(2 of 3) [CW-5766/2016]

Anuradha Jhala and Urmila Devi, the Coordinate Bench of this

Court had proceeded on to dismiss the writ petitions of petitioners

therein.

Counsel for the petitioner stated that before passing of the

judgment in Urmila Devi's case (supra) on 10.08.2017, the

Division Bench had already taken a contrary view in the case of

Laxmi Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 2018 (3)

RLW (Raj.) 2259 which was decided on 30.05.2017. Counsel

argued that therefore, the judgment as passed in Urmila Devi's

case being per incurium cannot be relied upon. Counsel further

relied upon the judgment passed in Raju Devi Vs. State of

Rajasthan (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13486/2018) decided

on 28.09.2018 wherein ratio as laid down in Laxmi Devi's case

(supra) was followed.

On a bare perusal of all the judgments cited at bar, this

Court is of the clear opinion that the petitioner ought to have been

granted one more opportunity for physical efficiency test. But

looking to the fact that the recruitment in question relates back to

the year 2015, granting of such relief at this stage would only be

possible if any vacancy qua the recruitment of the year 2015

exists till date.

Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment

passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khusbu Sharma

Vs. Bihar Police Subordinate Services decided on 27.09.2019

wherein a similar situation arose and in order to keep the equity

balanced, the Hon'ble Apex Court directed the petitioners therein

to be considered qua the vacancy advertised in the then ongoing

recruitment process. But on the same hand, the Hon'ble Court

(3 of 3) [CW-5766/2016]

had specifically observed that the said relief was a one time

measure.

Therefore, with the purpose to balance the equity, this Court

deems it proper to direct the respondents to place on record the

present status of the vacancies advertised vide advertisement

dated 26.10.2015. Counsel for the respondents is also directed to

place on record the number of vacancies advertised vide the said

advertisement, the number of seats filled up and the number of

seats which remained vacant qua the said advertisement.

List the matter on 05.04.2022.

(REKHA BORANA),J

94-T.Singh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)