State Of Rajasthan vs Ranu Pandya D/O Vipin Pandya
2022 Latest Caselaw 7286 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 542/2022

1.     State    Of     Rajasthan,          Through         Principal   Secretary
       Panchayati Raj Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
       Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.     Director, Primary Education, Rajasthan, Bikaner.
                                                                   ----Appellants
                                    Versus
1.     Ranu Pandya D/o Vipin Pandya, R/o Village And Post
       Mandav, Teshil Sagwara, Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
2.     Arnika Jain D/o Rajendra Kumar Kotia, R/o Pratiksha Hill
       Chowk, Dadooka, Tehsil Dadooka, Banswara.
3.     Vijay Singh S/o Prabat Singh Rathore, R/o Village And
       Post Jogiwara, Tehsil Sabla, District Dungarpur.
4.     The Board Of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer,
       Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini - A.A.G. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pulkit Bhardwaj, Mr. Akshit Gupta, Mr. Harendra, Mr. Yash Joshi, Mr. Pukh Raj Chawla, Ms. Sara Sharma, Ms. Pragya Seth, Ms. Keshika Jain, Mr. Bablu Sain

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI

JUDGMENT

16/11/2022

This special appeal has been preferred on behalf of the State

being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 09.12.2021

passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed

by the writ-petitioners (respondents herein) being S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.21060/2018 was allowed and the State has been

(2 of 4) [SAW-542/2022]

directed to revise the result of the writ-petitioners pursuant to the

advertisement dated 12.04.2018 (Annex.6) for the purpose of

recruitment of teachers Grade-III (Level-1) in the Elementary

Education Department and to grant them 20% concession. It is

further ordered by the learned Single Judge that if the writ-

petitioners are found eligible, then, appointment letters be issued

in their favour within a period of four weeks.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the

learned Single Judge has grossly erred in issuing the above

referred directions while allowing the writ petition.

Mr. Chiranji Lal Saini, learned A.A.G. has submitted that the

learned Single Judge has held that the State is required to provide

concession to the disabled persons as per the Notification dated

23rd of March, 2011 ignoring the fact that the said Notification has

already been withdrawn by the State Government. It is further

submitted that though the said fact has been brought into the

notice of the learned Single Judge while filing reply to the writ

petition, but the learned Single Judge has ignored the same and

illegally passed the impugned order. Learned counsel has also

argued that the learned Single Judge has wrongly interpreted the

judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in D.B. Civil

Writ Petition No.515/2019 : Nikki and Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. and has illegally held that the same is not

applicable in the present case as the controversy involved in the

instant case is squarely covered by the decision rendered by the

Division Bench of this Court in Nikki's case (supra). Learned

A.A.G. has, therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set

aside and the writ petition filed by the respondents may be

dismissed.

(3 of 4) [SAW-542/2022]

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents

has vehemently opposed the present appeal and argued that as

per the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4907/2019 : National Federation

of the Blind and Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other

connected matters, the controversy raised in the writ petition has

rightly been decided by the learned Single Judge and there is no

illegality in granting relief to the respondents to the extent that

they are entitled for 20% concession as per the provisions of law.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

impugned judgment as well as the material available on record.

The petitioner-respondents have approached this Court by

way of filing the writ petition alleging that they are physically

disabled persons and the State Government has deprived them

the concession as provided under the order/circular dated

23.3.2011. The petitioner-respondents while placing reliance on

the decision of this Court rendered in National Federation of

the Blind's case (supra) have claimed that the Division Bench in

the above referred judgment has held that the State Government

is obliged to grant concession to the physically disabled persons as

per the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

(for short 'the Act of 2016').

The claim of the petitioner-respondents was disputed by the

State on the ground that the observations/directions given by the

Division Bench in National Federation of the Blind's case

(supra) are applicable in relation to the blind people only and the

ratio laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of

Nikki (supra) covers that the controversy involved in the present

case.

(4 of 4) [SAW-542/2022]

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, we

are of the opinion that learned Single Judge has rightly held that

the controversy involved in the case of Nikki & Anr. (supra) is in

respect of the candidates of the TSP (general) category, who

secured less than 60% of marks in REET/RTET and not in relation

to the physically disabled persons. Learned Single Judge while

relying on the ratio laid down in the case of National Federation

of the Blind (supra), has also not committed any error in

holding that the Division Bench has specifically observed that the

State is obliged to grant concession to the disabled persons as per

the provisions of law and any action contrary to the same is not

acceptable.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length,

having gone through the material available on record and having

gone through the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in

the case of National Federation of the Blind (supra) and in the

case of Nikki and another (supra), we are of the opinion that the

learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the

impugned judgment, as the controversy raised by the

respondents-writ petitioners in the writ petition is squarely

covered by the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this

Court in the case of National Federation and the Blind (supra)

and hence, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, the same

is hereby dismissed.

The stay petition is also dismissed.

(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

Babulal/17

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)