Jodhpur Municipal Corp vs Smt. Manjusha
2022 Latest Caselaw 11135 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 428/2020

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus Tulchhi Ram

----Respondent Connected With D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 371/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus Madan Lal

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 407/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation,

----Appellant Versus Sunil

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 408/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation,

----Appellant Versus Sanjay

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 416/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation,

----Appellant Versus Nirmala

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 424/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation,

----Appellant Versus Ashok

----Respondent

(2 of 5) [SAW-428/2020]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 438/2020

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus Smt. Neeta

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 442/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation,

----Appellant Versus Kalawati Kanojiya

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 443/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus Smt. Ghevanri

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 445/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation

----Appellant Versus Meenakshi Kanwar

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 467/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus Smt. Rekha Devi

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 469/2020 Jodhpur Municipal Corp.

                                                                  ----Appellant
                                   Versus
Smt. Manjusha
                                                                ----Respondent





                          (3 of 5)                                      [SAW-428/2020]

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 490/2020

Jodhpur Municipal Corporation

----Appellant Versus Sharda

----Respondent D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 42/2021 Jodhpur Municipal Corp. Jodhpur

----Appellant Versus Leela Devi

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suniel Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Lokesh Mathur, Mr. S.S. Nirban, Mr. Rishabh Tayal, Mr. S.R. Pandit, Ms. Preet Kamal Sidhu Mr. Akshay Nagori Mr. Sudhir Saruparia

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

07/09/2022

The present special appeal has been filed assailing the order

of the learned Single Judge, whereby a direction has been issued

to reinstate the respondents on the post of Safai Karamchari with

all consequential benefits.

Learned counsel for the appellant pleaded that the

respondents, while seeking appointment on the post of Safai

Karamchari, submitted false affidavit indicating inter-alia that

he/she had less than two children after the cut-off date i.e.

01.06.2002. However, upon scrutiny of record, it was found that

(4 of 5) [SAW-428/2020]

each of respondents was having more than two children after the

cut-off date. He submitted that the appointments of the

respondents were rightly cancelled and, therefore, the same

should not have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

Per contra, it was submitted on behalf of the respondents

that Rule 9A of the Rajasthan Municipalities (Safai Employees

Service) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of

2012'), which provides that any person, who has more than two

children on or after 01.06.2022, shall not be eligible for

appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari, has been declared

to be ultra-vires by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment

dated 02.04.2019 rendered in a batch of writ petitions led by D.B.

Civil Writ Petition NO.16572/2018 [Anita & Ors. Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors.]. It was, thus, submitted that the condition of

having two or less than two children for appointment on the post

of Safai Karamchari cannot be imposed upon the respondents and

thus, even if the declaration was erroneous, it could not be treated

as an impediment against their selection against the post.

The matter requires consideration.

Admit.

Since the respondents are represented through their

respective counsel, notices need not be issued.

In view of the fact that a Division Bench of this Court in the

case of Anita (supra), has struck down the Rule 9A of the Rules of

2012, we find no reason to continue the interim order passed by

this Court in these appeals.

Accordingly, the interim order, passed in these Special

Appeals stand vacated.

(5 of 5) [SAW-428/2020]

The stay applications stand dismissed.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J 79-92-skm/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)