Norangi Devi vs State Of Rajasthan
2022 Latest Caselaw 7122 Raj

Citation : 2022 Latest Caselaw 7122 Raj
Judgement Date : 12 May, 2022

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Norangi Devi vs State Of Rajasthan on 12 May, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11341/2018

1. Norangi Devi D/o Shri Ambilal, Aged About 27 Years, Vpo Polas, Tehsil Degana, District Nagaur (Raj.)

2. Usha Poonia D/o Shri Ramkishan, Aged About 24 Years, Vpo Bhainsali, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)

3. Aasha Kumari Bhamboo D/o Shri Prema Ram, Aged About 25 Years, Arsinga, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur

4. Sanju Didel D/o Shri Mehram Didel, Aged About 25 Years, Vpo Rol, Tehsil Jayal, District Nagaur

5. Manoj Vishnoi W/o Budha Ram, Aged About 32 Years, Rotu, Jayal, District Nagaur (Rajasthan)- 341023

6. Bhagwati W/o Shri Rajendra, Aged About 25 Years, Khatolia Nadi, 567, Mansar, Bikaner (Rajasthan)

7. Suman W/o Shri Mahendra Palria, Aged About 29 Years, Biapura School, Merta Road, Nagour (Rajasthan)

8. Sangeeta D/o Shri Rewant Lal, Aged About 32 Years, Shiv Badi, Backside Of Fort, Nagaur

9. Krishna D/o Ramchandra, Aged About 38 Years, Bas Ekasar Scheme Bazar, Tausar, Nagaur

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Medical And Health Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. Additional Director (Admn.), Department Of Medical And Health, Swasthya Bhawan, Jaipur

3. Director, State Health And Family Welafre 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

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manoj Bohra.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shreyansh Mehta for Mr. K.S.

                               Rajpurohit, AAG





                                          (2 of 3)                [CW-11341/2018]


            HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

                                     Order

12/05/2022

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 petitioners 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).

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.

(3 of 3) [CW-11341/2018]

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."