Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Jahan Ara vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 3 August, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2023:RJ-JD:24713]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 747/2019
Jahan Ara D/o Shri Nisar Ahmed, Aged About 44 Years, R/o P.no.
84, Dig Firoz Khan Colony, Chungi Chowki, Main Chopasani
Road, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Rural Development And Panchayati Raj, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Director, Elementary Education, Bikaner, District
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
4. The Chief Executive Officer, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District
Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
5. The District Establishment Committee, Through Its
Chairman, Zila Parishad Jodhpur, District Jodhpur,
Rajasthan.
6. The District Education Officer (Headquarter), Elementary
Education, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Kailash Jangid
For Respondent(s) : Utkarsh Singh for Mr. Sunil Beniwal,
AAG
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
03/08/2023
1. Mr. Utkarsh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent -
State at the outset submitted that accepting the petitioner's
candidature, the State has taken an in-principle decision that the
petitioner is entitled for appointment.
[2023:RJ-JD:24713] (2 of 3) [CW-747/2019]
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner was not given appointment because of the condition
mentioned in the interim order.
3. Relevant part of the order dated 25.01.2019 reads thus:
"It is submitted that action of the respondents is
contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Smt. Raj
Rani v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.C.W.P. No.
10182/2012, decided on 10.10.2012, wherein, it was
observed by the Court that the respondents were
under obligation to provide relaxation of 5% to the
reserved class categories including "Widow and
Divorced" women.
Further submissions have been made that the
similar view, as has been taken in the case of Smt.
Raj Rani (supra), has been taken by the Division
Bench in Bharti Upadhayay v. The State of Rajasthan
& Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1122/2017,
decided on 10.08.2018 and based on the said
judgment in the case of Bharti Upadhayay (supra),
the appeal, arising from the case of Smt. Raj Rani
(supra) being State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Special
Appeal Writ No. 1022/2013, has been rejected on
07.09.2018 and, therefore, the law as laid down by
this Court is fully applicable to the case of the
petitioner and there remains no doubt qua the
qualification and eligibility of the petitioner, inasmuch
as, she took admission in B.Ed. between 27.09.2007
to 31.08.2009 and obtained 41.83% marks and the
stipulation in the advertisement for the said period is
45% marks and after taking into consideration the
relaxation as provided, the petitioner is very much
eligible.
In view of the submissions made, issue notice.
Issue notice of stay application as well.
Notices when issued be given 'dasti' to counsel
for the petitioner.
[2023:RJ-JD:24713] (3 of 3) [CW-747/2019]
In the meanwhile and until further orders, the
respondents shall not cancel the candidature of the
petitioner. The respondents are further directed to
decide the issue, pertaining to petitioner's candidature
as observed hereinbefore, by the next date.
List the writ petition on 25.02.2019. ."
4. There is nothing in the interim order dated 25.01.2019,
which impedes the respondents from issuing appointment order.
5. Be that as it may.
6. The present writ petition is disposed of with the direction to
the State Government to offer appointment to the petitioner
within a period of four weeks from today.
7. Stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
379-Mak/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
