Sanju vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 6358 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:26966]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2178/2020

Sanju D/o Shri Tolaram Husband Of Shri Subhash Chandra, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Thelasar Post Ratan Nagar, Churu (Rajasthan)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through- The Principal Secretary Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department, Sawasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

2. Director, Medical And Health Services, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Additional Director (Administration), Medical And Health Department, Head Quarter-Jaipur.

                                                                  ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)           :    Mr. Ram Chandra Bishnoi
For Respondent(s)           :    Mr. Rajat Arora &
                                 Mr. Lucky Rajpurohit for Mr. K.S.
                                 Rajpurohit, AAG



                      JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                      Order

24/08/2023

1. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has raised

a grievance that the respondents have not considered her

candidature in Scheduled Caste(SC) category.

2. The petitioner had applied for the post of ANM (Female

Health Worker (Non-T.S.P. area) pursuant to recruitment

notification dated 18.06.2018. When the cut-off for the successful

candidates was declared, the petitioner found that in spite of

securing 51.147 marks, her name was not shown in the list of the

selected candidates.

[2023:RJ-JD:26966] (2 of 3) [CW-2178/2020]

3. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondent-

State inter-alia accepting that the petitioner has secured more

marks than the cut off of her category and she is an SC category

candidate.

4. Mr. Rajat Arora, learned counsel for the respondent - State

submitted that the petitioner has not been accorded appointment

as she has done 'Adib' prior to pursuing professional course of

ANM, which is not equivalent to Secondary.

5. Mr. Ram Chandra Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner,

at this juncture, submitted that the Division Bench in its judgment

dated 12.01.2022, rendered in The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs.

Firdos Tarannum & Anr. D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.534/2005,

has held the qualification of Adib to be equivalent to Secondary.

6. In rejoinder Mr. Rajat Arora submitted that matter in Firdos

Tarannum (supra) was pertaining to the Teachers applying for the

subject - Urdu and hence, it is not applicable to the present case.

7. While highlighting that the case of Firdos Tarannum (supra)

was for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade-III in the

subject - Urdu, he submitted that the Division Bench of this Court

considered the clarification issued by the Board of Secondary

Education, Rajasthan on 31.07.2002 and held that a candidate

having passed Adib should be considered equivalent to having

cleared Secondary examination.

8. He submitted that since in the case of Firdos

Tarannum(supra), the issue was only in relation to Teacher Grade-

III subject - Urdu, point No.6 of the circular/order dated

31.07.2002, issued by the State Government was neither brought

to the notice of the Court nor was the same dealt with.

[2023:RJ-JD:26966] (3 of 3) [CW-2178/2020]

9. He submitted that in face of the point No.6 of the

Government Order/circular dated 31.07.2002, the petitioner who

has applied for the post of Female Health Worker/ANM, cannot be

considered to have cleared Secondary examination.

10. Mr. Arora submitted that the State has preferred an SLP

against the order dated 12.01.2022, passed by the Division Bench

of this Court.

11. Further the Division Bench judgment dated 02.02.2022 in

the case of Gomi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. SAW

940/2019, passed while relying upon Firdos Tarannum (supra) has

been stayed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in an SLP being SLP

No.4597/2023 : The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Gomi, filed

against the Division Bench judgment.

12. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ proceedings are

closed with a direction to the respondent - State to accord

appointment to the petitioner in case the above referred SLP

No.4597/2023 is decided against the State.

13. The petitioner would be free to move appropriate

application/representation before the respondent No.2 as and

when the above referred SLP in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs.

Gomi is decided.

14. Stay petition also stands disposed of accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 66-Ramesh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)