Nisha Meyrick vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42257)
2023 Latest Caselaw 10447 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 10447 Raj
Judgement Date : 5 December, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Nisha Meyrick vs State Of Rajasthan (2023:Rj-Jd:42257) on 5 December, 2023

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2023:RJ-JD:42257]                       (1 of 3)                          [CW-7454/2020]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                       JODHPUR
                    S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7454/2020

Nisha Meyrick W/o Shri Jhonson Meyrick, Aged About 49 Years,
R/o 212, First-C Road, Sardarpura, Jodhpur (Raj.)
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                        Versus
1.          State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
            Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2.          The    Director     General       Of     Police,         Rajasthan,   Police
            Headquarter, Jaipur.
3.          The Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Of Jodhpur,
            District Jodhpur.
4.          The Deputy Commissioner Of Police, Headquarter And
            Traffic, Commissionerate Of Jodhpur, Jodhpur.
                                                                       ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)             :     Mr. Vivek Firoda for Mr. Mahaveer
                                    Bishnoi.
For Respondent(s)             :     Ms. Vrinda Samdani for Ms. Vandana
                                    Bhansali, AG.C.



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

05/12/2023

1. The writ petition has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed with costs and by issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction; (i) the impugned letter dated 14.08.2020 (Annex.7) may kindly be quashed and set aside to the extent of declaring petitioner ineligible for participate in the eligibility examination for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable against the vacancies of

[2023:RJ-JD:42257] (2 of 3) [CW-7454/2020]

year 2017-18. (ii) the respondents may kindly be directed to permit the petitioner to participate in the eligibility examination for promotion from the post of Constable to Head Constable against the vacancies of year 2017-18 and (iii) if petitioner found otherwise eligible then she may be promoted on the post of Constable of Head Constable against the vacancies of year 2017-18 with all consequential benefits.

Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. The following order was passed by a Coordinate Bench of this

Hon'ble Court on 19.08.2020:-

"1. Mr. Bishnoi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's selection grade has already been deferred for a period of five years consequent to giving birth to a 3rd child, yet the petitioner has been denied the right of being considered in the process of promotion, advertised vide notification dated 29.7.2020, for the same reason, i.e., she has mothered 3rd child.

2. Relying upon the judgment dated 29.11.2016 in the case of Parbat Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan (SBCWP No.10159/2015), learned counsel argues that petitioner cannot be denied promotion as the same would amount to double jeopardy.

3. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also returnable within six weeks.

4. Meanwhile, the petitioner shall be permitted to take part in the further process of promotion notified by notification dated 29.7.2020. In case, the petitioner is found meritorious and otherwise eligible, her name shall be shown in the list of promoted candidates.

[2023:RJ-JD:42257] (3 of 3) [CW-7454/2020]

However, neither formal order of promotion shall be passed nor shall effect of the promotion be given, without leave of the Court."

3. It is informed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of

the respondents that in pursuance of the interim order, the

petitioner was permitted to take part in further process on

promotion vide notification dated 29.07.2020, but she was not

found meritorious, which is also reflected from Annexure-R/2

dated 25.08.2020, and thus, she has not been granted promotion.

4. In light of the statement made by the learned counsel for the

respondents, the instant petition is no more survive, as the

petitioner is not coming in the merit for promotion apart from the

present prayer.

5. Thus, no further adjudication is called for in the present

petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. All pending