Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Meena vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 May, 2022
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10612/2018
Meena D/o Shri Vinod Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Ward No.
25, Ratangarh, Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Medical And
Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director, Rajasthan Health And Family Welfare
Institution, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Additional Director (Admn.), Directorate Of Medical
And Health Services, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Vyas.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for Mr. K.S.
Rajpurohit, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
04/05/2022
Learned counsel for the parties submit that the issue raised
in the present petition is covered by order in State of Rajasthan
vs. Ms. Firdos Tarannum & Anr.: D.B. Special Appeal (W)
No.534/2005, decided on 12.01.2022 and another order in
Santosh Swami vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.: D.B. Special Appeal
(W) No.33/2021, decided on 08.03.2022, following the order in
the case of Ms. Firdos Tarannum (supra).
In the case of Santosh Swami (supra), the Division Bench
inter-alia observed as under:-
"Learned counsel for the appellant would
submit that the reason for upholding the results of
(2 of 3) [CW-10612/2018]
the appellant in the matter of appointment pursuant
to advertisement dated 18.06.2018 is on account of
dispute with regard to recognition of qualification of
Adeeb-Mahir. He would submit that in relation to
earlier advertisement of the year 2000, involving
identical issue of recognition of Adeeb-Mahir
qualification, this Court vide order dated
12.01.2022 passed in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.
534/2005 has held that all such qualifications
issued prior to recall in the year 2011, have to be
recognized.
Therefore, it is contended that the issue
raised by the appellant is squarely covered by the
aforesaid judgment.
Counsel for the State would submit that the
order passed in SAW No. 534/2005 was related to
only those cases where the result was withheld in
the matter of selection/appointment pursuant to
advertisement of 2000, while in the present case,
withholding of result was pursuant to advertisement
of 2018. He would further submit that in the
aforesaid decision, relief has been granted by this
Court directing the State authorities to consider
case of the appellants therein for appointment for
the post in question according to merit position. He
would submit that though on legal issue this case is
also convered, but appointments would be subject
to availability of posts.
We find that the issue raised in this appeal is
squarely covered by order dated 12.01.2022 passed
in D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 534/2005 and as in the
present case, admittedly, the qualification was
obtained prior to withdrawal of recognition in the
year 2011, the appellant, in this case, would also be
entitled to similar relief as has been granted in the
other case.
It goes without saying that the direction,
which has been given in other case is also to be
given in this case, would be subject to availability of
the posts.
Accordingly this appeal is also disposed off
with a direction to the State authorities to consider
the appellant for appointment for the post in
question according to merit position and if
appointed, to grant all consequential benefits
except back wages for the past period. In other
words, the appellant would have the benefit of
seniority for the past period from the date the
person below the petitioner in merit list was
appointed."
(3 of 3) [CW-10612/2018]
In view of the submissions made, the petition filed by the
petitioners is disposed of in light of and with similar directions as
given in the case of Santosh Swami (supra).
(ARUN BHANSALI),J
44-Rmathur/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
